From 7cb785f8f369cfa4f6818e85dd0675899ef4e506 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jens Oliver Meiert Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:59:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] docs: add missing period, correct spelling Signed-off-by: Jens Oliver Meiert --- explainer/index.html | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) diff --git a/explainer/index.html b/explainer/index.html index 60a6c0d8..d2881a1e 100644 --- a/explainer/index.html +++ b/explainer/index.html @@ -47,26 +47,26 @@

- This Explainer accompanies the drafts of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. + This Explainer accompanies the drafts of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0.

- This is a first draft of the Explainer. It is not normative and is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation. It provides background on W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. + This is a first draft of the Explainer. It is not normative and is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation. It provides background on W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0.

Introduction

W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 is a successor to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 [[WCAG22]] and previous versions, but does not deprecate WCAG 2.X. It will also incorporate content from and partially extend User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[UAAG20]] and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [[ATAG20]]. These earlier versions provided a flexible model that kept them relevant for over 10 years. However, changing technology and changing needs of people with disabilities have led to the need for a new model to address content accessibility more comprehensively and flexibly. WCAG 3.0 originally had a project name of "Silver", so the original groups working on it and much of the early design work carries that project name.

-

One of the goals of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 is that it will be written using plain language as much as possible so that people who are not technical can still understand it, and so WCAG 3.0 can be more easily translated into other languages. When it is finished, WCAG 3.0 will have many ways for making the web and other digital content (like video or mobile apps) more accessible to people with disabilities. +

One of the goals of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 is that it will be written using plain language as much as possible so that people who are not technical can still understand it, and so WCAG 3.0 can be more easily translated into other languages. When it is finished, WCAG 3.0 will have many ways for making the web and other digital content (like video or mobile apps) more accessible to people with disabilities.

-

This Explainer includes background information on the development of WCAG 3.0, its goals and research. It also provides additional explanation of structure and differences from the current WCAG 2 guidelines to make it easier for people to understand. +

This Explainer includes background information on the development of WCAG 3.0, its goals and research. It also provides additional explanation of structure and differences from the current WCAG 2 guidelines to make it easier for people to understand.

-
+

Background and development history

- The Silver Task Force of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and the W3C Silver Community group have partnered to produce the needs, requirements, and structure for the new accessibility guidance. To date, the group has: + The Silver Task Force of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and the W3C Silver Community group have partnered to produce the needs, requirements, and structure for the new accessibility guidance. To date, the group has:

  1. Researched accessibility guidance needs
  2. Developed problem statements and opportunities to improve accessibility guidance @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@

    Background and development history

  3. Created and tested prototypes for aspects of the project
  4. Created a First Public Working Draft
- +

Background on WCAG 3.0

The Silver Community Group and their research partners conducted a year of research which included a literature review as well as interviews, surveys, and self-reporting with people with disabilities, content developers, quality assurance professionals, tool developers, designers and policy makers.

@@ -117,18 +117,18 @@

Goals for Conformance

The goals are based on the Silver research, the results from the Silver Design Sprint, and input from the Silver Community Group and Task Force.

  • Better align conformance with the experiences of people with disabilities, and keep in mind that people with different disabilities have different experiences. -
  • Treat the needs of all disabilities equitably. -
  • Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes more attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs may not fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x. -
  • Consider the needs of more organizations +
  • Treat the needs of all disabilities equitably. +
  • Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes more attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs may not fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x. +
  • Consider the needs of more organizations.
  • Be user-oriented instead of page-oriented. Think about what is the person trying to do. -
  • Wherever possible, preserve the organization’s investment in training, tooling, and knowledge. +
  • Wherever possible, preserve the organization’s investment in training, tooling, and knowledge.
  • Support the ability for organizations to choose parts of their site or product for conformance (a logical subset of a site or product).
  • Create a more flexible conformance model that addresses the challenges in applying the 2.x conformance model to large, complex, or dynamic websites and web applications.
    • Help organizations prioritize things that have a greater impact on improving the experience of people with disability.
    • Develop a more flexible method of measuring conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content.
    -
  • Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products. +
  • Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility, and help developers of authoring tools, browsers, and assistive technologies learn the behaviors that users expect of their products.
  • Improve tests so that repeated tests get more consistent results.
  • Increase the ability to create more automated tests.
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@

Goals for Conformance

Non-Goals or Out-of-Scope

  • Non-web emerging technologies (this may change as the charter is clarified) -
  • Normative requirements for platforms, operating systems, software in the web technology stack (etc.) +
  • Normative requirements for platforms, operating systems, software in the web technology stack (etc.)
    • We want to point to external accessibility guidance by the vendor
    • We want to document the needs of people with disabilities where vendor accessibility guidance is lacking @@ -167,12 +167,12 @@

      Structure of these guidelines

      Figure 1 shows the core structure of WCAG 3.0. WCAG 3.0 has three levels of content with associated documentation. Guidelines form the top level. Each guideline contains multiple outcomes, with associated critical errors and outcomes scoring. Each outcome contains multiple methods, with an associated description and examples, tests, and test scoring.

      Guidelines structure

      -

      Guidelines provide a high-level, plain-language version of the content for managers, policy makers, individuals who are new to accessibility, and other individuals who need to understand the concepts but not dive into the technical details. They provide an easy-to-understand way of organizing and presenting the outcomes so that non-experts can learn about and understand the concepts. Each guideline includes a unique, descriptive name along with a high-level plain-language summary. Guidelines address functional needs on specific topics, such as contrast, forms, readability, and more. Guidelines group related outcomes and are technology-independent.

      -

      Example: Use sections, headings, and sub-headings to organize your content.

      +

      Guidelines provide a high-level, plain-language version of the content for managers, policy makers, individuals who are new to accessibility, and other individuals who need to understand the concepts but not dive into the technical details. They provide an easy-to-understand way of organizing and presenting the outcomes so that non-experts can learn about and understand the concepts. Each guideline includes a unique, descriptive name along with a high-level plain-language summary. Guidelines address functional needs on specific topics, such as contrast, forms, readability, and more. Guidelines group related outcomes and are technology-independent.

      +

      Example: Use sections, headings, and sub-headings to organize your content.

      Outcomes structure

      -

      Each guideline contains multiple outcomes. Outcomes result from practices that reduce or eliminate barriers that people with disabilities experience. Outcomes form the basis of a flexible and expansive architecture for accessibility guidelines that closely relates to the needs of people with disabilities. Outcomes are designed for use by developers, testers, and other technical experts. +

      Each guideline contains multiple outcomes. Outcomes result from practices that reduce or eliminate barriers that people with disabilities experience. Outcomes form the basis of a flexible and expansive architecture for accessibility guidelines that closely relates to the needs of people with disabilities. Outcomes are designed for use by developers, testers, and other technical experts.

      Outcomes are written as testable criteria and include information on how to score the outcome in an optional Conformance Claim. Within a guideline, outcomes have an AND relationship. All relevant outcomes must be addressed but not all outcomes will apply to all technologies and situations. When an outcome does not apply, it is marked NA in the scoring.

      @@ -180,22 +180,22 @@

      Outcomes structure

      Critical errors

      Outcomes include the related critical errors that can occur and how to identify them. Not all outcomes have critical errors. Any critical errors will result in the lowest score for the outcome.

      - +

      Evaluating processes requires counting critical errors that occur within the process and associated views. Critical errors are:

      • Errors located anywhere within the view that stop a user from being able to use that view (examples: flashing, keyboard trap, audio with no pause);
      • Errors that when located within a process stop a user from completing a process (example: submit button not in tab order); and
      • Errors that when aggregated within a view or across a process stop a user from using the view or completing the process (example: a large amount of confusing, ambiguous language).
        • -
      +

Outcome rating

Each outcome is rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The rating model is designed to be flexible in order to allow more functional needs of people with disabilities to be included in the guidelines. 

Each outcome defines the rating criteria used for that outcome. The rating criteria are designed to be technology agnostic but tie to the available methods so that method level scoring can be rolled up when possible or the tester can make an informed judgment call about the outcome rating.

-
+
- +

Methods structure

@@ -203,28 +203,28 @@

Methods structure

Screenshot of a Method for Structured Content

Each outcome has one or more methods. There are three types of methods:

-
    +
    • All - Methods that apply across all technologies.
    • Technology specific - Methods that apply to one of a predetermined list of technologies such as HTML, PDF, or VR.
    • Fallback - Methods that apply to emerging or proprietary technology and for technology that does not yet have a method written

    When technology specific methods are provided, the outcomes will also include one or more fallback methods.

    - +

    The methods include detailed information on how to meet the outcome, code samples, working examples, resources, as well as information about testing and scoring the method.

    - +

    Example: Semantic headings (HTML)

    While WCAG 3 Methods have some similarity with WCAG 2 Techniques, they are not the same and are not interchangeable.

    - +

    Description

    -

    Each method includes a detailed technical description of the method with instructions on how the method works that do not depend on examples. If there are dependencies between methods, these are also listed here. Dependencies between methods will be a rare situation.

    +

    Each method includes a detailed technical description of the method with instructions on how the method works that do not depend on examples. If there are dependencies between methods, these are also listed here. Dependencies between methods will be a rare situation.

    Examples

    Each method also includes working code samples and detailed examples.

    - +

    Tests

    Tests provide ways to check that methods and techniques have been followed. Tests include step-by-step instructions on evaluating the method based on the technology being used. Tests may vary by technology as needed.

    Tests specify the unit being tested and the approach to scoring for that test.

    @@ -232,13 +232,13 @@

    Tests

    Test Scoring

    Each method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test. The testing results for methods inform the rating of the related outcome.

    - +

Additional Documentation and Scoring Information

- +
Summary
    @@ -250,13 +250,13 @@

    Additional Documentation and Scoring Information

    Some of these sections are in this document. You can find others in links within the sections.

-

The core structure has inter-relationships with supporting documents and the scoring process. Functional needs inform both outcomes and functional categories. The tests within methods are used to inform the scores for each outcome. Then outcome scores are aggregated to create scores by functional category and an overall score. These then result in a bronze rating. Silver and gold ratings build on the bronze rating to demonstrate improved accessibility. General information about guidelines is available in How To documents.

+

The core structure has inter-relationships with supporting documents and the scoring process. Functional needs inform both outcomes and functional categories. The tests within methods are used to inform the scores for each outcome. Then outcome scores are aggregated to create scores by functional category and an overall score. These then result in a bronze rating. Silver and gold ratings build on the bronze rating to demonstrate improved accessibility. General information about guidelines is available in How-To documents.

Documentation and Scoring Structure
-

How tos

+

How-tos

The How-To content provides explanatory material for each guideline that applies across technologies. This guidance explains how to apply the concepts presented in the guidelines for non-technical readers. This plain language resource includes information on getting started, who the guideline helps and how, as well information for project managers, designers and developers.  

@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@

Functional categories

Conformance Levels

WCAG 3 has an optional scoring system that can better inform organizations on the quality of their accessibility effort. The optional conformance levels provide a way for organizations to report their conformance in simple manner. The bronze level is based on the score in each functional category and the overall score. Silver and gold levels require conforming at the bronze level plus additional improved usability for people with disabilities.

-

This first draft focuses on bronze level. Future drafts will have more information on silver and gold levels. We expect that bronze will be similar to WCAG 2 AA, while silver and gold will include more usability-type testing. This is still under development. WCAG 2.X AAA success criteria are generally included in WCAG 3. The design of the scoring model awards more points for implementing the outcomes that come from WCAG 2.X AAA.

+

This first draft focuses on bronze level. Future drafts will have more information on silver and gold levels. We expect that bronze will be similar to WCAG 2 AA, while silver and gold will include more usability-type testing. This is still under development. WCAG 2.X AAA success criteria are generally included in WCAG 3. The design of the scoring model awards more points for implementing the outcomes that come from WCAG 2.X AAA.

@@ -308,19 +308,19 @@

How Conformance Fits into the Information Architecture

  • Methods are specific examples, instructions, and tests with more technical information.
  • We will add a tagging engine to make it easier for people to find information by tags.
  • We want organizations to be able to use an API to copy the guideline data to use for their own purposes.
    • -
  • Guidelines will include: +
  • Guidelines will include:
    • updated WCAG 2.1 guidance (technology-specific success criteria will become Methods)
    • new guidance written for WCAG 3.0 -
    • new guidance for task completion testing +
    • new guidance for task completion testing
    • -
  • Methods are associated with Guidelines. In general, Methods are technology specific. +
  • Methods are associated with Guidelines. In general, Methods are technology specific.
    • Methods include tests for each Method.
      • -
    • Each Guideline will have multiple Methods with existing WCAG Technique guidance or new Methods written for WCAG 3.0. +
    • Each Guideline will have multiple Methods with existing WCAG Technique guidance or new Methods written for WCAG 3.0.
    • Methods can include tests for determining the percentage points to apply to the conformance score. See the Points and Levels section following for details.
      • -
    • Methods can provide guidance for: +
    • Methods can provide guidance for:
      • User agents
      • Authoring tools @@ -335,22 +335,22 @@

        How Conformance Fits into the Information Architecture

        Selecting a Representative Sample

          -
        • Essential functions vary by industry -- gaming will be different than e-commerce. We can't say what has to be tested, the organization needs to determine what is essential. -
        • The organization (or author) defines the workflows and components, then prioritizes the primary workflows and components to test. See WCAG-EM Steps 2 and 3 to help determine what workflows and components are representative samples. -
        • The ability to get to the workflow, (like login) also must be accessible. -
        • There are going to be technical violations of success criteria that don’t impact accessibility (for example, missing alt text that are explained in the text or the same HTML id attribute that aren’t ever referenced) that shouldn’t negatively impact the score. NOTE: There will be further development and amplification of what shouldn’t negatively impact the score. The concept of pass or fail should no longer be binary, but accounts for a concept of sufficient +
        • Essential functions vary by industry -- gaming will be different than e-commerce. We can't say what has to be tested, the organization needs to determine what is essential. +
        • The organization (or author) defines the workflows and components, then prioritizes the primary workflows and components to test. See WCAG-EM Steps 2 and 3 to help determine what workflows and components are representative samples. +
        • The ability to get to the workflow, (like login) also must be accessible. +
        • There are going to be technical violations of success criteria that don’t impact accessibility (for example, missing alt text that are explained in the text or the same HTML id attribute that aren’t ever referenced) that shouldn’t negatively impact the score. NOTE: There will be further development and amplification of what shouldn’t negatively impact the score. The concept of pass or fail should no longer be binary, but accounts for a concept of sufficient
        • People still need to have access to material that still isn’t in the primary flow. Accessibility can be tested even if it doesn’t have a flow. NOTE: There needs to be a way that important sections, like navigation and footer, don’t get overlooked because they aren’t part of the flow.

    • Research and Input from Industry Leaders

    -

    The Silver Community Group partnered with academic and corporate researchers to address a list of specific questions related to improving accessibility standards. Details of the research questions, projects, and the results are on the Silver Research Archive wiki page. +

    The Silver Community Group partnered with academic and corporate researchers to address a list of specific questions related to improving accessibility standards. Details of the research questions, projects, and the results are on the Silver Research Archive wiki page.

    -

    Problem Statements

    +

    Problem Statements

    - The Silver Research themes were organized into Problem Statements in three areas: Usability, Conformance, and Maintenance. + The Silver Research themes were organized into Problem Statements in three areas: Usability, Conformance, and Maintenance.

    (quoted from Silver Research Problem Statements)

    People generally liked the advice of WCAG, but commented about the content:

    @@ -427,6 +427,6 @@

    Maintenance

    - + \ No newline at end of file