-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Find a consistent phrase to use in Understanding documents for recommended approaches #2148
Comments
Historically WCAG has used the term advisory for things that are not required - so advise is in line with that. Another term might be ideally. |
Using simple wording would be my preference. Not sure if the nuance of "advise" might work for all readers (and especially non-native english speakers) |
Something that is relevant to this discussion occurs in the preamble to WCAG .21:
That reads, in part:
I believe "recommended" is the most natural fit, although it does involve the use of the passive voice:
|
FWIW, if this comes to survey as-is, it will be my recommendation that AGWG avoid Some other standards/guidance documents avoid our particular conundrum via a more rigid approach (e.g., they list musts followed by shoulds — in a single document) but that has not been our practice. All of Understanding, per the RFC2119 terms and because they are non-normative, are My own strong preference is that we continue to characterize things which go beyond the bare minimum requirement of the SC as In this case, that could be:
|
@bruce-usab, why would we characterize something that goes beyond the SC as advisory? If it meets or exceeds an SC then it would be regarded as sufficient as a technique. Things that are advisory are usually good ideas but aren't required to meet an SC, for example https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G141.html for 1.3.1. |
Thanks @awkawk — such a good point! Thanks for that correction! Yes, I agree we use That said, I think my editorial suggestion (which avoids |
I agree advisory may not be sufficient but tangentially related and go beyond related SC. |
I'd say it is more like: helpful-but-not-required by the SC. Also to note, we've had complaints (leading to objections) for using MUST/SHOULD style language in understanding documents, they were seen as a backdoor way of adding requirements. On the other hand, there are SCs where we know that the user-need is not (fully) met by just meeting the normative text. That makes me less comfortable with "best practice". How about trying to focus on the usability of the outcome? E.g.
The key thing is that the understanding doc is clear about what is normatively required, and what is also helpful (or even necessary from the user's point of view). So perhaps when stating the normative requirement we should use 'must' type language? |
That works for me! I think @mbgower was hoping we might land on a phrasing which is closer to a copy/paste approach, but I am optimistic that a usability lens can serve for recommended approaches.
I agree that, per RFC2119, we may do this. We should not because, historically, the churn defeats any utility those four (may/must/should/recommended) words may have provided. We do not use |
So for our various scenarios (meeting SC, going beyond baseline], we can use formulations such as:
To pick on an understanding doc which includes 1 must and 3 shoulds, this:
Could be: "Information needed to identify controls does not need to be visible all the time. However, to meet this criterion information needed to identify controls must be visible when the controls are needed without hover interaction or keyboard focus." And this:
Could be: |
@mbgower Can this issue be closed? It seems to relate a branch from January 2022 that is just about updating Consistent Help. If this can be closed, please do that and delete the branch as well. Thanks! |
The update in the branch was to content that didn't make the final SC. Closing. |
As per the discussion in today's AGWG, the group wishes to arrive at a consistent phrase to use
Suggestions included "Best if, Prefer, Recommended, Suggest, Advise"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: