SC Understanding update: "What it is about" Vs. "What it isn't about"

[jake-abma]

At GAAD I was at a conference and attended an almost 2 hour presentation of WCAG 2.1 with focus on the new SC. The presenter was a professional from an (well known) accessibility company doing audits.

It was astonishing to see and hear how the new SC were not really well understood. Many corrections were needed to keep the presentation on track, lacking all the nuances we spend so much time on.

After the presentation I had a talk with the presenter and he told me the company as well as many other people in our country discussed the new SC multiple times within a group and this was the result how they understood the SC.

I would like to suggest / propose we add a specific section in ALL the Understanding docs what is IS about and specifically what it is NOT about. This would really, really help lots of people.

2 simpel / not elaborated examples:

1.3.4 Orientation:

Is about:

• Only not locking the orientation from within the content

Is NOT about:

• No loss of information or functionality
• Preventing horizontal scroll

---

1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose

Is about:

• Only providing the purpose via an attribute
• The attributes may come from different techniques like microformats / autocomplete or others...
• Purely the user using the web page at that moment, not other users or puposes NOT defined in the WCAG list

Is NOT about:

• Filling in data so it's easy for the user to use forms
• Only about / requiring autocomplete
• All possible names, emails, etc. on a webpage

---

This really seems very much needed, they had so much nuances "just a bit wrong" and all agreed with each other if there was not someone (in this case me) to tell them otherwise.

Wondering what you all think of this?!

[jake-abma]

This Issue is related to the one from @DavidMacDonald #742

Some comments already made:

Jake
#742 (comment)

Patrick
#742 (comment)
#742 (comment)

Jake
#742 (comment)

[patrickhlauke]

yes ... i've taken a similar stance in internal documentation about how to test WCAG SCs, giving some really basic common examples of what the SC does and doesn't cover. this is the sort of thing that should be very clear and evident in our understanding docs.

e.g. for 1.3.5, the whole "relying just on type is not enough, AND this SC also doesn't actually mandate the use of correct type ... and if you're not using the most appropriate type - e.g. you use type="text" rather than type="email" for an email input - it's NOT a failure of this SC either ... "

this needs to be right up-front, clear, and not buried in lengthy prose/details (or absent altogether)

[alastc]

Noting from that other thread: We had a proposal for somethin similar a while ago in #395. It’s a slightly different approach, but in either case we’d need to sit down and create 78 versions…

A wiki page first?

[jake-abma]

reference for problem/Works well: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/

[jake-abma]

Noting from that other thread: We had a proposal for somethin similar a while ago in #395. It’s a slightly different approach, but in either case we’d need to sit down and create 78 versions…

A wiki page first?

This might be something to pick up soon, as this would really help devs, designers, UX, content writers etc etc...

[shawna-slh]

People really like the persona quotes in What’s New in WCAG 2.1 as an introduction to the SC.

EOWG suggested adding them to the top of the Understanding documents. I don't remember what happened to that. Maybe we didn't submit it well or maybe it got lost in the pile of other important things to do. Anyway, we are designing for them in the incomplete, rough draft of Understanding docs.

Note that we also have What's New in WCAG 2.2 Working Draft. However, probably lots of people don't know about it. Perhaps we want to add a pointer to that page from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#new-features-in-wcag-2-2 ? e.g.,

For persona quotes that help understand some aspects of the new success criteria, see What's New in WCAG 2.2.

The quotes do not provide all that is needed. I like the "is about", "is NOT about" idea in addition to the quotes.

[shawna-slh]

sit down and create 78 versions

How about something like this for a phased approach:

1. for new 2.1 SCs (which some people are required to meet and are still struggling to understand, or are misunderstanding) - starting with the ones that need it the most
2. for new 2.2 SCs
3. for 2.0 SCs that really need it

and probably not bother doing it for SCs that don't need it as much.

[alastc]

Update from the backlog meeting:

• We had a couple of competing suggestions for this, the other one was having a 1-2 line summary at the top, which @mbgower has written up already.
• It seems like a good idea, how do we phase it in?
• Work from the end and go backwards, i.e. 2.2, 2.1, 2.0.
• Step 1: PR that includes the summaries and persona quotes for a couple of 2.2 SCs.
• Step 2: Review with the group, ensure we're taking the best approach.
• Step 3: Role out across other SCs.

[mbgower]

I'm going to suggest that all the different approaches are complementary. They all point to a perceived need to revamp the existing Understanding documents and try to service key things quickly.

That said, this can very much be a 'less is more' situation. Michael Cooper suggests at one point locating information at the end of the document. That may make sense for some of it. It makes sense to do a full re-think of a template, but my sense is we don't have time to do either that or even write up the material for all the SCs. The good news is this is not normative, and does not need to be done immediately. BUT, the argument for making changes now is it may be better socialized if the change coincides with the publication of 2.2

As a starting point, I've made a PR for a few SCs where I've added in material I was considering as a preliminary "In brief" section. The additional information suggested in this or in other issues could be added into the docs and we could incorporate general reaction to where the best balance and structure is.

For this specific issue, I'm thinking that the 'What it is and isn't' section may make more sense near the end of the Understanding document, as it serves as something of a summary of what people have just consumed.

[alastc]

Michael's done a PR for an initial 4 examples in #2905

Comments welcome, but any suggestions that increase the material added to the doc would need someone to create them (which could be done in a separate word/google doc).

A bit of CSS work may be required, once we've checked the appearance in new templates. We can also make them dl lists as well.

[alastc]

Update from the meeting yesterday:

• The approach here is good.
• The persona quotes are good to add, but fit better at the top of the "Benefits" section.

We can keep adding to #2905 for any & all of these.

We should also look at the styling, there might be something from the new design's WAI styling to help them stand out a bit.

[mbgower]

@jake-abma my feeling is that the addition of the In Brief section at the top of each Understanding document has largely addressed this, so I am closing this. If you feel you would like something additional, please reopen and provide comments.

BTW, the position will be getting moved to the very top of the document -- above the normative text.