- From: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 09:53:54 +0100
- To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Glenda & Wilco, Great paper, I was nodding vigorously in several places :-) It's a good time to make these points, as it mixes well with some thoughts I've had about Silver & the direction guidelines & conformance could go in future. In some ways this builds on the levels A / AA / AAA in WCAG 2.x, so if in Silver those levels were removed, I don't think using minimum/optimised/idealised would work without the WCAG levels in place as well? Unless the AAA type criteria were aligned with 'idealised'? Also, there is another concept I'd like to bring-in at some stage: Analysis of barriers by their impact on the user-journey. When talking to clients, a key aspect of prioritisation for accessibility fixes is what impact that issue (barrier) has on the user-journey of the site. Two extreme examples would be: - Missing alt text on a partner logo in the footer of a website, which is unlikely to be noticed by any real user, and certainly doesn't impact their journey. - A keyboard in-accessible 'next' button on a form every user must fill in to proceed. Both are level A fails, but the priority of the two should be very different. At least for organisations that optimise their user-journeys for their target users, this type of analysis is fairly straightforward and (at optimised & idealised levels) maps well to whether people will struggle. Kind regards, -Alastair
Received on Monday, 21 May 2018 08:54:18 UTC