Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

As we look at WCAG Next we might consider criteria like 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 as
guidelines. 1.3.1 can be decomposed functionally. There are objects that
support navigation like headings. Others support associations of objects
(table headers, and table data) as well as labels and controls 1.3.2 could
be interpreted as an SC under 1.3.1 e.g. sequences can be programmatically
determined. Separation of style from meaning really seems like the core
guideline, not the more vague, flexible data.  It gets at the relationship
between markup language and accessibility.

I think a functional dissection of this concept into discrete components
might be the technology independent way to parse refined semantics for
success criteria.

Wayne

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

>  "White, Jason J” wrote:
>
> Do you have a proposal as to how you would maintain the technology-neutral
> and general approach of WCAG 2.0 while providing more normative detail in
> these areas?
>
> I wish I did!  I can understand why it was so difficult for WCAG 2.
>
> I will think about it, my first thought is perhaps separating layout &
> navigation considerations from content-level widgets, perhaps inline with
> HTML5’s concepts of kinds of content [1].
>
> I realise that HTML5 is technology specific, but I think other platforms
> have similar concepts that we can take an high-level view on.
>
> It might even be a case of putting 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 together at the
> principle level so there is one area for ‘what is this thing and what does
> it do’.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#kinds-of-content
>
>
>
>
> For example, HTML and SVG are very different in regard to the kinds of
> structure that they support, even without considering other technologies
> which an author might use.
>
>
>
> The supported structural and semantic distinctions change with each
> version of one of these languages. HTML may be heading toward a more rapid
> release process as well, which further accelerates the pace of change.
>
>
>
> The above is a genuine question; I’m not trying to use it in support of an
> argument that more detailed success criteria in these areas are infeasible,
> but neither do I have a good answer – and these are very much the issues
> that were struggled with when WCAG 2 was under development.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>