Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

Hi Sailesh,

> “So context is addressed via non-normative techniques”

I think that maybe context is too wide a word in this topic. What I had meant by context was: What is the impact on the user’s task if there is a particular accessibility barrier in the way?

That leads onto your second point:

> “Often there are images (and sometimes CSS ones) with promotional messages or instructional text  that are not available to vision impaired users without suitable alternative text.”

In the first proposal from the issue-severity sub-group the severity/impact was assessed at the test-level (under the guideline / outcome level), and it would have to be an aggregate, high-level view of the severity. That approach does have the problem you describe, it cannot account for the meaning of that content in context.

The second proposal (less explored but had good support at the TPAC meeting) was to evaluate each barrier in context. For example, if the promotional message (not conveyed by alt-text) was missing for all users, what would the impact be?

As David said: “ It might be easier for stakeholders closer to the content to provide priorities then for us (WCAG) to provide them”.

Personally, I think it needs to be a combination, each method/test should provide guidance for its potential impact, and then a manual review provides your metric / prioritisation. That also aligns with current practices. How much is baked into the standard is then the question.

These are things to be explored in the issue-severity sub-group, which will then report back to the full AG group.

Kind regards,

-Alastair



From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 02:45
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus
Couple of comments based on above exchanges:
1. About context: Techniques for WCAG are generally organized by the
situation they apply to. In other cases, their description indicates
when a particular technique is most appropriate.
So context is addressed via non-normative techniques that can be
accessed as technology / environment evolves without need to write /
enhance SCs. This is in line with GV's  comments above.
2. GV writes: "This is where I have the problem.    Why is it assumed
that a functional button is always more important than a content
image".
Indeed I said that to myself. Often there are images (and sometimes
CSS ones) with promotional messages or instructional text  that are
not available to vision impaired users without suitable alternative
text.
Thanks,
Sailesh