Side note regarding the survey "Approach to publishing WCAG 3"

After pondering the survey "Approach to publishing WCAG 3", I realize 
that I am less concerned with the frequency and format of publication 
and more fundamentally concerned with arriving at a better understanding 
of the new WCAG 3.0 framework – also in view of MATF requests to port 
2.X SCs to the new 3.0 format. I feel profoundly queasy about this 
process, and I am not sure whether it is my lack of understanding or 
even just lack of effort ("try harder"), or a squishyness that's just to 
be expected and tolerated in any significant redesign.

For me, it all hinges on a good consensual understanding regarding the 
relationship between guidelines, outcomes, functional categories, 
methods, and tests. The existing examples of the five guidelines in the 
WCAG 3.0 Working draft still do not give me a clear grasp of how these 
elements are related. The text mentions that outcomes will be more 
granular than SCs. On the other hand, the example of the ported 
guideline /Text Alternatives/ has just one outcome, "Text alternative 
available", which misses the opportunity to differentiate between an 
outcome "availability" (like ACT rule id 23a2a8 /Image has non-empty 
accessible name/) and in a second step, an outcome like "accessible name 
is equivalent/descriptive" as in the tests of WCAG 2.X General 
Techniques 94 & 95. Maybe the second outcome was intended, but is still 
missing - not sure.

So right now the relation between the bits and pieces is not clear (to 
me). Take, for example, a hypothetical Guideline /Interactive elements 
can be activated/ in view of different functional categories, which 
would cut across several current SCs.

A.I can tab to, and activate, the element with keyboard (by implication 
also with a switch)
B.Using a screen reader, I can arrow to, and activate, the element with 
keyboard(or mobile SR gestures)
C.I can activate the element with speech (because its label is in the 
accName)
D.I can *see* that the element is an interactive control (visual 
affordance) and therefore know it can be activated
E.I can tap or click on the element to activate it

This is just a hypothetical example of a new synthesized Guideline, 
please don't start discussing whether it is valid. I am just using it to 
make a point.

Note that A and B are not the same – there are elements a screen reader 
user can reach and activate that a sighted keyboard user won't reach. 
Would all these A-E be different outcomes in WCAG 3.0, i.e. outcomes 
should be generally faceted in line with different functional 
categories, having in turn different methods to implement them 
successfully? This is what I see as granular. Or is this faceting the 
task of (technology- or input-specific) methods and their tests, and 
outcomes are less granular than I currently assume? Then I am not sure 
how they really differ from the (technology-neutral) concept of the 
current WCAG 2.X SCs. The answer to this question would also be relevant 
for any scoring approach.

Best, Detlev

-- 
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites