Re: Product accessibility documentation dissenting report

At 2001-03-05 14:59, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Harvey,
>Are you saying you can live with 10.1 requiring Double-A conformance, or 
>that you would like to register an objection that documentation should be 
>triple-A conformant.

As I review the set 10.1 thru 10.5 in more detail, I withdraw my objection. 
However, I believe the following editorial comments are pertinent.

>If you are registering a minority opinion, what has changed in the last 2 
>months from when we went to last call for you to register a minority opinon?

My concern resulted from listening to Gregory Rosmaita and Mickey Quenzer. 
Documentation on how to use accessibility features as a minimum, and how
those features allow full access to documentation, seems critical, so 
justifying WCAG AAA, nice to have, to get the user going unaided. If the
author can show that documentation on use of the accessibility features
(10.2 and 10.4 -- at AA) is sufficient to thereafter access and understand
the rest of the document, then AA is suitable for that other documentation
as well, so checkpoint 10.1 is OK.

Clarification for me: the language "at least Level Double-A" means it
may also meet some Triple-A checkpoints.

In 10.1, Ensure that at least one version of the product documentation 
conforms to at least Level Double-A of the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]

Documentation whose definition is:
"refers to all information provided by the vendor about a product,
including all product manuals, installation instructions, the help
system, and tutorials."

That glossary explanation for "Documentation" is broader than just
accessibility, and doesn't seem to permit subsetting.

In 10.2 Document all user agent features that benefit accessibility.
[Priority 1]

     where: Document is linked to the documentation glossary entry.

I think the "in platform-specific accessibility guidelines" of 10.5
should also appear in 10.2.

10.3 Document the default input configuration (e.g., the default keyboard 
bindings). [Priority 1]

I'd like a note discouraging remapping of commonly used platform-specific
default keyboard bindings. [Are there conflicting keyboard mapping effects
across platforms?]

10.4 adds: "In a dedicated section of the documentation, describe all
features of the user agent that benefit accessibility. [Priority 2]"

Together 10.2 and 10.4 meets my desire, though both are restrictive
about subject of the documentation to which it applies. That is not what
the glossary term asserts.

10.5 In each software release, document all changes that affect 
accessibility. [Priority 2]

Note: Features that affect accessibility are listed in this document and in 
platform-specific accessibility guidelines

In the note above, "this document" I read as this UA Guidelines. Change to
"that software release document".

I think the "in platform-specific accessibility guidelines" should also
appear in 10.2.

Add to the note:

"Resolution of any conflicts between accessibility use in the user agent 
overriding those in the platform-specific accessibility guidelines
should be emphasized, as such exceptions to familiar behavior can be
disorienting."  For example, does CTRL-D mean down or delete? Avoid 
reassignment for a user agent that results in a destructive irreversible
actions.

Regards/Harvey Bingham


>Jon
>
>
>At 07:55 AM 3/2/2001 -0500, Harvey Bingham wrote:
>>10.1 Ensure that at least one version of the product documentation 
>>conforms to at least Level Double-A of the Web Content Accessibility 
>>Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]
>>
>>I'd prefer to require AAA for at least one form of product documentation, 
>>particularly that dealing with accessibility. By extension that should
>>apply to all documentation, since accessibility issues are not readily
>>separable.
>>
>>Regards/Harvey Bingham
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP