Principles P O U R should be referenced sooner than later in WCAG 3.0

[spanchang]

The overarching principles P O U work splendidly to cluster guidelines as done in WCAG 2.X. As the "Requirements For Silver" do not document any limitations or de-merits of doing this, it will be beneficial to introduce the principles sooner into WCAG 3.0 framework.
The principles should be regarded as more than a method for merely filtering content of WCAG 3.0. So these should be introduced into early drafts.
The principles are also a good way of introducing new readers to the field of digital accessibility - and contribute to one of the goals for Silver i.e. ease of use / readability / usability.
Thanks,
Sailesh

[jspellman]

Thank you for your comment. Project members are working on your comment. You may see discussion in the comment thread and we may ask for additional information as we work on it. We will mark the official response when we are finished and close the issue.

[LJWatson]

The basic concepts are good, but I do not think we should continue to use POUR in WCAG3.0. The acronym always felt very contrived to me, and besides - the words themselves are not good examples of plain language.

I also never understood the wisdom of choosing an acronym that, when spoken, was easily confused with the word for low quality.

[bruce-usab]

I don't remember who first proposed POUR, but it did have utility for grouping SC. I also like how it creates a natural hierarchy (e.g., one cannot operate a component if one cannot perceive it, etc.). The one activity (VVSG2) I know of that initially started with the POUR concept for "buckets" of requirements ended up with 15 principles and only one of those (Robust) ended up in the title list.

@spanchang (or anyone else), could you point me to examples of POUR being used elsewhere?

I would call myself as a fan of POUR, but as someone who has had frequent opportunity to introduce people to WCAG2, it has not really resonated with my audience. I am personally comfortable with the planned approach that POUR can be reflected as "tags" in a future iteration of WCAG3.

[spanchang]

Léonie, Sorry if my original comment was not clear. WCAG 2.X does not use the acronym POUR and I am not suggesting it should be used now. All I am saying is that the four top level principles are great for organizing guidelines and outcomes / methods / SC etc. I do not see any negative comment or criticisism about this aspect of WCAG 2.X in the Silver requirements doc. So why is WCAG 3.0 moving away from this? I do not see an equally forceful and useful alternative in place. When more and more guidelines get added it is quite easy to get lost without a top level organizer of sorts. Thanks, -- Join me at axe-con 2021: a free digital accessibility conference. Read more at https://www.deque.com/axe-con/ Feel free to contact Deque marketing if you have any questions. Thanks! Sailesh Panchang Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc 381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, VA 20170 Mobile: 571-344-1765 ** Stay Positive Test Negative **

[LJWatson]

Thanks @spanchang. I agree that a way of organising guidelines is worth considering - I just don't think that the POUR principles are the right way to do it, or at least, the right words to use.

[bruce-usab]

FWIW, one criticism I have heard over the years is that POUR works well enough for organizing SC in a requirements document (i.e. WCAG 2.0), but that POUR does not offer real utility as a way to formulate a test process order. It is quite possible that WCAG3 will be an improvement in that regard!

I recently had opportunity to remind myself that WCAG 1.0 included a view that listed requirements in a reasonable test process sort order:  http://w3.org/TR/WCAG10/checkpoint-list.html

[spanchang]

Please refer back to the original comment of Dec 2. What is the rationale for doing away with the principles? There will be multiple guidelines and there is agreement they need to be grouped into a coherent framework. Unless there is an acceptable alternative, the four principles should be reinstated. And they are for grouping guidelines, not tests or methods etc.