"supplemental guidance" or another term?

[shawna-slh]

We want a short name/title for what is currently called:
"Supplemental Guidance to WCAG 2"
(see the wording in the header at the very top)

Context: We will soon publish the COGA objectives and design patterns on the WAI website along with redesigned Understanding WCAG, Techniques, and (ACT) Test Rules. We plan to also publish similar guidance on low vision accessibility, and maybe other areas, too, e.g., mobile.

Background: "supplemental guidance" was the term negotiated for WCAG 2.1:

We encourage authors to refer to our supplemental guidance on improving inclusion for people with disabilities, including learning and cognitive disabilities, people with low-vision, and more.

However, "supplemental" is not a simple word. And is "guidance" being close to "guidelines" a good thing or confusing thing? If we are going to call this something different, now is the time to do it.

(We can't change 2.1. And we will leave that target link in the WCAG Overview page, even if we change the text. We could change that sentence in WCAG 2.2.)

An idea for an alternative: Additional Guidance

---

Do you have other ideas for possible alternatives to "Supplemental Guidance"? Or, do you think it is the best option? Any input on translate-ability of "Supplemental Guidance" or translate-ability of the other ideas?

[bakkenb]

I don't have an overwhelming issue with using the term "supplemental guidance." I don't see the use of the word guidance being misconstrued with "guidelines."

If not too much of an understanding barrier with non-native English speakers, the terms "Ancillary Guidance" or "Ancillary Support" would be an acceptable alternative.

The word ancillary "picks up on the notion of providing aid or support in a way that supplements something else. In particular, the word often describes something that is in a position of secondary importance." -Webster. I just do not know if the word ancillary would be problematic for others.

[carlosapaduarte]

Non-native speaker here.

I agree with Brent regarding "guidance". I don't consider that to be an issue.

While I'm comfortable with "supplemental" (I'm used to it), and I don't have an issue with "ancillary" (although it's more uncommon than the alternatives), I do believe "additional" is the simplest of the 3 options proposed so far. It was the alternative my mind wondered to before reaching Shawn's initial proposal.

If we consider the search trends for the 3 options, it's clear that "additional" is more commonly used in searches than the other two.

Considering familiarity with the content, I would keep "supplemental", which would be better for existing "users" of W3C resources. Considering the simplicity of the content, my vote goes for "additional", which is probably better for people new to these resources.

[SteveALee]

-1 to ancillary - unusual in everyday speech +1 to additional - common usage +1 to guidance - clear status (though I note guidelines is a bit weak given the status of WCAG)

[sharronrush]

-1 to ancillary for the reasons stated Not sure about guidance, I can see how there may be confusion about guidelines/guidance and which are required vs recommended. Easier for us to know that difference, being steeped in it.

What about another approach? If we emphasize that the content of the "additional" information is to meet the specific needs of certain users, might that not be clearer about the intent and status of the advice?

To me those would be clearer if the title became something like "Meeting User Needs" for brevity - or "Additional Techniques to Meet User Needs," if required to be more definitive.

Or for even greater simplicity just call them "Further Recommendations" to communicate that it is beyond the requirements of the actual legal standard. All of the preceding is my own recommendation and I am happy to accept the editor's decisions on clarity, brevity, and meaning. Thanks for this work.

[shawna-slh]

Note that right now there are sections for COGA and Low Vision. In the future there may be sections for mobile or other specific situations. That is, the sections could be something other than user groups.

I think we want to avoid words that have a specific meaning in WCAG and W3C, e.g., "techniques" and "recommendations"

Also, btw, there are reasons not not use to "best practice". (though I cannot articulate them well now)

[shawna-slh]

A couple points.

First, please see the context in which this is used, e.g., header at https://wai-wcag-supplemental.netlify.app/wcag-supplemental/all-supplemental-guidance/

Supplemental Guidance to WCAG 2

Second, an important point is communicating that this is not required to meet WCAG. We have this wording a couple of places:

• Supplemental Guidance is informative, not required to meet WCAG.
• Supplemental guidance provides advice… on improving the accessibility of content and applications beyond what is required by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

It would be good if it is also communicated in the header text.

“Supplemental Guidance to WCAG 2” is shorter version of “guidance that is supplemental to WCAG 2”. However, “Additional Guidance to WCAG 2” doesn’t seem as smooth. Perhaps: “Additional Guidance Beyond WCAG 2” ?

[AndrewArch]

I do agree that 'additional' seems simpler than 'supplemental' [supplemental = provided in addition to what is already present or available to complete or enhance it] and better than 'ancillary'.

What about 'complementary guidance' as it complements and adds to WCAG?

[SteveALee]

One disadvantage to additional (and possibly complementary) is that while it accurately describes the relationship to WCAG, especially for legal reasons, it undervalues the importance for an inclusive user experience!

[lauracarlson]

As WCAG is a baseline, +1 to something such as "Best Practices: Beyond WCAG".

[mraccess77]

Supplemental guidance is good with me.

[bruce-usab]

Of the suggestions in this thread, Additional Guidance Beyond WCAG 2 gets my vote.

Also, btw, there are reasons not to use "best practice". (though I cannot articulate them well now)

I would like to know more about these reasons! One concern I have heard (in a different context) is that this sort of guidance might more accurately be characterized as better practices — but probably not the best practices. Also, since 2.0 Level AA is the baseline (which is an objectively a good thing), it is also objectively (for many settings) the absolute bare minimum. Characterizing something that does a little bit more than the bare minimum as a best practice seems hyperbolic.

[lauracarlson]

+1

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:07 PM Bruce Bailey @.***> wrote:

Of the suggestions in this thread, Additional Guidance Beyond WCAG 2 resonates for me.

Also, btw, there are reasons not to use "best practice". (though I cannot articulate them well now)

I would like to know more about these reasons! On concern I have heard (in a different context) is that this sort of guidance might more accurately be characterized as better practices — but probably not the best practices. Also, since 2.0 Level AA is the baseline (which is an objectively a good thing), it is also objectively (for many settings) the absolute bare minimum. Characterizing something that does a little bit more than the bare minimum as a best practice seems hyperbolic.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-supplemental/issues/39#issuecomment-1018035906, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPNHEAIVMQUN7ZAR74RGZTUXCPTNANCNFSM5L4UQWIQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[SteveALee]

I'd like to think the guidance would eventually move into to WCAG so the status should not implied to be permanent :)

[jade-mc]

I'd vote for additional resources/guidance. Any form of supplement is really high level in terms of language (using the EVP corpus as reference) it's coming out as a C2 level which indicates low frequency, native speaker level, whereas additional is a B2 (the scale goes from A0-C2 in terms of difficulty.) Additional resources/guidance is all B2 and much more accessible to a global audience. *Kevin's suggestion in the meeting of support material is even more accessible at a B1/B2.

[Myndex]

Designing for Accessibility:

Reaching Beyond Minimum Guidelines
for an Improved User Experience.

[SteveALee]

Due to lack of a conclusive alternative we'll stick to "supplemental guidance"

[sharronrush]

Ummm, no one seemed to prefer supplemental although several said they "had no problem with it." Not sure why this is closed?

[shawna-slh]

COGA Facilitators, LVTF Facilitator, AG WG Chairs, and EOWG Chairs were asked to "share this GitHub issue with your groups as appropriate" on 13 January.

Here are EOWG minutes from 21 January 2022. including comment about "supplementary" versus "supplemental"

[shawna-slh]

After consideration, there was not a replacement that didn't have issues.

Therefore, we plan to leave the term as was agreed upon with COGA folks and WCAG folks a few years ago, and not spend more time debating it and re-negotiating consensus.