Help

[lseeman]

Current versions of SC and Definitions

• SC for viewing | SC for editing
• Cardinal Direction definition for viewing | Cardinal Direction definition for editing
• Long Document definition for viewing | Long Document definition for editing
• Complex Numerical Information definition for viewing | Complex Numerical Information definition for editing
  • SC in full draft guideline

    SC Shortname:

    Provide Support

        <h2><strong>SC Text</strong></h2>

    Content is provided that helps users understand complex information, long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions, forms and non-standard controls.

        <h2><strong>Suggestion for Priority Level</strong></h2>
        <p>AA</p>             

    Related Glossary additions or changes

        <p>Cardinal Directions:<br>
          Points of the Compass (North,  South, East and West)</p>
        <p>Long Documents:<br>
          300 words or more<br>
          </p>
        <p>Complex Information:<br>
          Something with at least three parts where at least two of those parts interact with each other in multiple ways.</p>
        <h2><strong>What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.</strong></h2>
        <p>Principle 3, Guideline 3.3 - Input Assistance</p>
        <h2><strong>Description</strong></h2>
        <p>The use of complex information, long documents and data in a particular  format and the use of non-standard controls in Web forms can present significant barriers  to users with cognitive accessibility needs. The intent of this Success Criterion  is to ensure that navigation, operability and the ability to complete tasks  associated with a website is fully understandable and accessible to people with  cognitive accessibility needs through the provision of context sensitive help, tooltips and explanation of jargon. For example:</p>
        <ul>
          <li>A user with dyscalculia may have  difficulty processing temperature data when presented only in a numeric format.  However if non-numeric alternatives are provided (cold, warm, hot etc.) then  the likelihood that they will have no issue in processing the data is high.</li>
          <li>Promoting clarity when complex information  is presented by providing a summary or keywords will make the information more  accessible to all users, especially users with cognitive accessibility needs.</li>
          <li>People  who find reading or language difficult can be helped by a chart or graph.</li>
          <li>People who do not know their left from right will be able to use navigation systems.</li>

  The main reason for the upgrade in the conformance level is to ensure that user needs are consistently addressed across the different disabilities.

      <p>Note that graphics should be clear and it should be easy to identify meaning and context.  The ability to "read between the lines"; of a text, graphic, or  lecture may seem obvious to many users without cognitive accessibility needs but it may create barriers for people with autism, who may not be able to readily   discern the intended relevance of graphical data.</p>
      <p>Further use aria-describedby to associate the graphic or sections   of a graphic or chart and the text that describes it can be read by a   screen reader while the right section of the chart is highlighted.</p>
      <h2><strong>Benefits</strong></h2>
      <p>The benefit to users with cognitive accessibility needs is that the  information in the help is presented in a way that it is  understandable  and therefore supports the user in accessing the information or service which would  otherwise be too complex for them to consume. This Success Criterion addresses  two broad classes of issues associated with this type of information:</p>
      <ul>
        <li>If the user perceives the  activity to be too complex the user may decide to abandon the activity and  therefore be excluded from the information and/or services derived from the  completion of the activity.</li>
        <li>If the activity relies on the  comprehension of complex information, long documents, data in a particular  format or non-standard controls then the likelihood of errors being made during  the activity increases, particularly for users with cognitive accessibility  needs.</li>

While providing clarity and accessibility is of benefit to all users it is of particular benefit to a wide range of users with differing cognitive accessibility needs including users with:

• Language related disabilities
• Memory related disabilities
• Disabilities that effect executive function and decision making
• Focus and attention related disabilities

    <p>Providing comprehensive help not only benefits  users with diverse cognitive accessibility needs but also benefits any user who  is unfamiliar with the material and therefore the benefits are not restricted to  a relatively small subset of users.</p>
    <p><br>
      The user needs are more fully described in the <a href="https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html">User       needs Table. </a></p>

Please review the following user needs table

    <ul type="disc">
      <li> Table 3: Entering data, error prevention &amp; recovery</li>
      <li>Table 4: Help and support</li>
      <li>Table 7: Clear and understandable content and text </li>
      <li>Table 9: Navigation and GPS</li>

Also see our Background research document

Related Resources

Resources are for information purposes only. No endorsement is intended or implied.

“Accommodating-ASD-In-STEM.pdf”. Nathan W . Moon, PhD Robert L. T odd, M S David L. Morton, PhD Emily Ivey, M S (You can download it from John's Dropbox account at http://bit.ly/18wev76.)

See http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/further-information/dyslexia-style-guide.html

Garrett, K. L., Beukelman, D. R., & Low-Morrow, D. (1989). A comprehensive augmentative communication system for an adult with Broca's aphasia. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 5(1), 55.

Top Five Instructional Tips for Students with Down syndrome" http://specialedpost.org/2013/01/31/top-five-instructional-strategies-for-students-with-down-syndrome/

"Down syndrome and Learning" http://inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/down-syndrome-and-learning/

Phiriyapkanon. Is big button interface enough for elderly users, P34, Malardardalen University Press Sweden 2011

Neilson Norman Group article: Pop-ups and Adaptive Help Get a Refresh by Katie Sherwin on March 15, 2015 - http://www.nngroup.com/articles/pop-up-adaptive-help/. Present help content in a small modeless overlay window. Provide a link to more detailed information if available. Alow user to minimize, resize and move the window. What about small screens?

Testability

    <p>
    This Success Criterion can be tested manually. </p>
    <p><strong>Test Procedure</strong></p>
    <ul>
      <li>Identify  by inspection:
        <ul>
          <li>complex  information, </li>
          <li>long documents, </li>
          <li>numerical information, </li>
          <li>relative and cardinal  directions (North, South, East, and West), </li>
          <li>forms (except for simple search forms)</li>
          <li>and non-standard controls</li>
        </ul>
      </li>
      <li>For each of the above conform that a sufficient technique has been used to supply additional support</li>

Techniques

    <p><br>
      <strong>Sufficient techniques for icons and jargon</strong></p>
    <p><strong>Ensure one of the following techniques are used:</strong></p>
    <ul>
      <li>All icons and jargon have a short  explanation available. (Where a standard mechanism exists  for the platform or technologies it should be used. (COGA Techniques 2.7)</li>
      <li>Using COGA semantics to supply  a short  explanation for icons or jargon</li>
      <li>Short tooltips on all icons and  jargon that clarify the meaning are provided.</li>
      <li>a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G62.html">WCAG 2.0 Technique G62:  Providing a glossary</a>.</li>
    </ul>
    <p><strong>Sufficient techniques for content relating to numbers and complex  information.</strong> (use whichever apply)</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Charts or graphics are provided  where they aid the comprehension of complex information. (COGA Techniques 2.7.3)</li>
      <li>Tables are provided where they  aid the comprehension of information.</li>
      <li>Where an understanding of mathematics  is not a primary requirement for using this content use one of the following:
        <ul>
          <li>Reinforce numbers with  non-numerical concepts, e.g., Very Cold, Cold, Cool, Mild, Warm, Hot, Very Hot</li>
          <li>Using COGA semantics to supply  a non-numerical concepts</li>
      </ul>
      <li>For content with sections use one of the following:</li>
        <ul>

Using enable semantics to add symbols to sections

                         <li>Adding symbols as an addition to headings, key short  sentences and phrases to aid understanding. <br>
          However as some people have  difficulty remembering symbols, use text with the symbol.
        <ul type="disc">
          <li>Use clear symbols that can easily be seen and expanded</li>
          <li>Use images understood by different users</li>
          <li>In left to right languages place the image to the left of the text</li>
        </ul>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <p><strong>Sufficient techniques for content with more than 300 words</strong></p>
    <ul>
      <li>a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G86.html">WCAG 2.0 Technique G86:  Providing a text summary that can be understood by people with lower secondary  education level reading ability</a>. For pieces of content with less than 300  words the heading may act as a summary.</li>
      <li>Semantic headings are used to  break the information down into a more manageable size and provide structure to  the information being presented. This particularly benefits users of Assistive  Technology.</li>
      <li>The content owner identifies at  least two keywords that aid comprehension for the user and these keywords are  programmatic determinable and emphasized in the modality of the user.</li>
      <li>Using COGA semantics to identify keywords</li>
      <li>Using COGA semantics to supply a summary</li>
      <li>Using a plugin to supply a summary<br>
      </li>
    </ul>

Sufficient techniques for forms

• Using a standard mechanism for the platform or technologies exists for context sensitive help
• Using COGA semantics for context sensitive help
• Semantic headings are used to provide a logical structure to a form adding both the understanding of the form layout and the information required. This will also benefit users of Assistive Technology.

Sufficient techniques for non-standard controls

    <ul>
      <li>Clear and non-ambiguous instructions should  be available for non-standard controls.</li>
      <li>Using COGA semantics for instructions should  be available for non-standard controls</li>
    </ul>
    <p><strong>For  relative and cardinal  directions (North, South, East, and West), </strong></p>
    <ul>
      <li>Using  a standard mechanism for the platform  or technologies exists for personalization of relative and cardinal  directions and terms</li>
      <li>Providing alternative terms relative and cardinal  directions (North, South, East, and West) where personalization is not supported</li>
    </ul>
    <p><strong>For key content and call out boxes</strong> (this might belong to another SC)</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Consistent cues are provided that  identifies different content types and the status of elements and regions that  help the user understand its role or state.</li>
      <li>Provide symbols that help the  user identify key content including:</li>
      <ul>
        <li>types of contact information</li>
        <li>types of help</li>
        <li>types of  functions</li>
        <li>warnings</li>
        <li>key points</li>
        <li>errors</li>
        <li>system messages</li>
        <li>notes</li>
        <li>definitions</li>
        <li>more information</li>
        <li>tables of content and site maps</li>
        <li>file types</li>
        <li>search</li>
        <li>required information</li>
        <li>errors</li>
        <li>opinions</li>
        <li>essential information</li>
        <li>types of transaction and type of reminder</li>
        <li>instructions and status of an element</li>
        <li>invalid fields</li>
        <li>non-native</li>
        <li>content and sponsored content are clearly marked and visually  differentiated by standardized techniques</li>
      </ul>
    </ul>
    <p><strong>Failure  Technique:</strong> Adding a star next to key content as that does not help the user to understand  the context of the key content.</p>
    <h2><strong>Working groups notes (optional)</strong></h2>
    <p>This is the short name for the SC (e.g. "Non-text Content" is the short name for SC 1.1.1 in WCAG 2.0)               </p>
<p>Test Procedure was changed. original was:</p>        

• Ensure by inspection that each area of an input section that relies on long documents, complex information or data in a particular format has specifically associated help provided. If nine out of ten people who have not seen the content before consider the content to fall under the types of content covered by this Success Criterion then the provision of specific help is required.
• Ensure that any specific help provided is both clear and unambiguous. If nine out of ten people who have not seen the content before consider the content to be both clear and unambiguous then the Success Criterion can be considered to have been met.
• Ensure that the method of accessing any specific help is obvious to all users, regardless of their mode of accessing the content

[GreggVan]

what is a "non-numerical value for a number"?

[GreggVan]

"For each of the above conform that a sufficient technique has been used to supply additional support" is not a valid test. This means that ONLY documented sufficient techniques can be used to meet this SC. The test has to be technique independent. That is -- the validity of the technique is determined by the TECHNIQUES ability to meet the SC. As written this test is therefor circular.

[lseeman]

This is not meant to be a valid test. That was NOT what we were asked to provide. This section was intended to discuss testability issue, such as if tools would be needed, and how people could know when they were done with the criteria.

I think Andrew and Josh had said that testing against a technique probably would be enough.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:50:16 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

"For each of the above conform that a sufficient technique has been used to supply additional support" is not a valid test. This means that ONLY documented sufficient techniques can be used to meet this SC. The test has to be technique independent. That is -- the validity of the technique is determined by the TECHNIQUES ability to meet the SC. As written this test is therefor circular. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[lseeman]

We had all the sufficient techniques as part of the SC. That made it clear what was needed. We were asked to move them to the techniques section and we could test against them. (Of course we can move it back if the WG prefer. ). We also split it into a few Success criteria.

Original wording was:

Provided content and information that help users understand the content For icons and jargon: All icons and jargon have a short explanation available Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used.(COGA Techniques 2.7. )(removed to technique: Short tooltips on all icons and jargon that clarify the meaning are provided.. )

For content relating to numbers and complex information Charts or graphics are provided where they aid the comprehension of complex information (COGA Techniques 2.7.3 ) Tables are provided where they aid the comprehension of information Where an understanding of math is not a primary requirement for using this content. Reinforce numbers with non-numerical values, e.g., Very Cold, Cold, Cool, Mild, Warm, Hot, Very Hot.

For content with more then 200 words Provide a summary. For pieces of content with less then 200 words the heading may act as a summary. The content owner identifies at least two keywords that aid comprehension for the user and keywords are programmatic determinable and emphasized in the modality of the user.

For key content and call out boxes Symbols are provided to help the user identify key content including: types of contact information, types of help, types of main functions, warnings, key points,errors, system messages, notes, definitions, more information , table of content and site map, file types, search. Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used.

For events Enable the user to set a reminder for date and time sensitive events. Reminders should be set only at the users request and the user should be able to personalize the reminder method. Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used

For forms and non standard controls Where a standard mechanism for the platform or technologies exist for context sensitive help it should be used. (Simple search forms are excluded.) Instructions should be available for non standard controls

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:50:16 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

"For each of the above conform that a sufficient technique has been used to supply additional support" is not a valid test. This means that ONLY documented sufficient techniques can be used to meet this SC. The test has to be technique independent. That is -- the validity of the technique is determined by the TECHNIQUES ability to meet the SC. As written this test is therefor circular. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[lseeman]

A non-numerical value is a value that does not rely on understanding numerical concepts and is not expressed in numbers

Note that we ONLY require it where an understanding of mathematics is not a primary requirement for using this content. So if something can only be expressed as a number it is not required to provide an alternative.

Examples of were providing a non-numeric alternative is doable is for something like " 98% of people agreed that..." This could have an alternative of " "almost all people agreed that " Then people with dyscalculia can also understand the content.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:47:43 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

what is a "non-numerical value for a number"? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[GreggVan]

Ah Thanks

gregg

On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Lisa Seeman notifications@github.com wrote:

A non-numerical value is a value that does not rely on understanding numerical concepts and is not expressed in numbers

Note that we ONLY require it where an understanding of mathematics is not a primary requirement for using this content. So if something can only be expressed as a number it is not required to provide an alternative.

Examples of were providing a non-numeric alternative is doable is for something like " 98% of people agreed that..." This could have an alternative of " "almost all people agreed that " Then people with dyscalculia can also understand the content.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:47:43 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

what is a "non-numerical value for a number"? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32#issuecomment-267281890, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3rk26wX-tlnnCeoVagFUOgkaTGftks5rIQnIgaJpZM4K9HXj.

[GreggVan]

Hmmm I think you missed the point.

Sufficient techniques are EXAMPLES of things that are sufficient. But you must be able to test an SC WITHOUT relying on any example technique. Otherwise the ONLY way to satisfy the SC is the technique — and we never say that our techniques are the only way — just one way.

So saying that passing a technique is the test — is not a valid approach to testing an SC. It needs to be testable independent of any technique.

gregg

On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:12 AM, Lisa Seeman notifications@github.com wrote:

We had all the sufficient techniques as part of the SC. That made it clear what was needed. We were asked to move them to the techniques section and we could test against them. (Of course we can move it back if the WG prefer. ). We also split it into a few Success criteria.

Original wording was:

Provided content and information that help users understand the content For icons and jargon: All icons and jargon have a short explanation available Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used.(COGA Techniques 2.7. )(removed to technique: Short tooltips on all icons and jargon that clarify the meaning are provided.. )

For content relating to numbers and complex information Charts or graphics are provided where they aid the comprehension of complex information (COGA Techniques 2.7.3 ) Tables are provided where they aid the comprehension of information Where an understanding of math is not a primary requirement for using this content. Reinforce numbers with non-numerical values, e.g., Very Cold, Cold, Cool, Mild, Warm, Hot, Very Hot.

For content with more then 200 words Provide a summary. For pieces of content with less then 200 words the heading may act as a summary. The content owner identifies at least two keywords that aid comprehension for the user and keywords are programmatic determinable and emphasized in the modality of the user.

For key content and call out boxes Symbols are provided to help the user identify key content including: types of contact information, types of help, types of main functions, warnings, key points,errors, system messages, notes, definitions, more information , table of content and site map, file types, search. Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used.

For events Enable the user to set a reminder for date and time sensitive events. Reminders should be set only at the users request and the user should be able to personalize the reminder method. Where a standard mechanism exists for the platform or technologies it should be used

For forms and non standard controls Where a standard mechanism for the platform or technologies exist for context sensitive help it should be used. (Simple search forms are excluded.) Instructions should be available for non standard controls

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:50:16 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

"For each of the above conform that a sufficient technique has been used to supply additional support" is not a valid test. This means that ONLY documented sufficient techniques can be used to meet this SC. The test has to be technique independent. That is -- the validity of the technique is determined by the TECHNIQUES ability to meet the SC. As written this test is therefor circular. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32#issuecomment-267275891, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3t2OljQi-WBYJGPvCKGv0awEv4eCks5rIQR5gaJpZM4K9HXj.

[lseeman]

Hi Gregg I had an conversation with AWK who felt it might be sufficient, so there is clearly not consensus here. Anyway, this section is ideas on testability. It is not meant to be a full all encompassing test. We do need to be sure however that SC is testable.

[joshueoconnor]

Assigned to Jan McSorley - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

[lseeman]

should we brake this up into many success cryteria suc as supply a summary for long content

[lseeman]

Just to clarify. this used to be one very long SC. The techniques were how to meet it for different content. D we prefer A. the current format were the detail on how to meet it is in the sufficient tequences B. The old format (see comment above - it was a very long SC) C. Brake it up into about 6 new success cryteria for each case. for example : provide support for long documents : For content with more then 200 words one of the following is true:

• • Summary. For pieces of content with less then 200 words the heading may act as a summary.
• -Keywords. The content owner identifies at least two keywords that aid comprehension for the user and keywords are programmatic determinable and emphasized in the modality of the user.

[lseeman]

should we change the short name from "3.3.5 Help: " to Provide support: then it is more of a stand alone

[joshueoconnor]

@lseeman I don't see a GH username for Jan here. Is there a PR ready for this one or do you need more time?

[lseeman]

Jan, can you answer this one as well. thanks

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:41:12 +0200 joshueoconnor<notifications@github.com> wrote ----

@lseeman I don't see a GH username for Jan here. Is there a PR ready for this one or do you need more time? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[jmcsorle]

My username is jmcsorle and I have not made a pull request on this yet. There is still some discussion that needs to be resolved. TPG has some suggestions that we need to evaluate as well.

[joshueoconnor]

@jmcsorle thats fine - thanks.

[lseeman]

based on gregg's comment on the lst: Content and information is provided that helps users understand complex information, long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West), forms and non-standard controls. Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values unless an understanding of mathematics is a requirement for the using this content.

[lseeman]

note that Long Documents and Complex Information is defined above

explanatorily content and information is content that presents the information in a different way or provided additional detail that helps more people understand the content

[GreggVan]

a few thoughts / questions

thanks for note about Long Documents and Complex Information being defined

?? “content and information” — sounds like two different things — but isn't content information?
what content besides information are you requiring the author to provide?

it looks like I can meet this SC by providing a single word or sentence. You ask for “information” or “content and information” to be provided but you do not say how much or what it must do. So I have no idea what you mean I should provide or how much. just that it “helps” to some degree THIS MAY BE FINE. in fact this may be very good. We require them to provide SOMETHING but we don’t try to say how much.. so ANYTHING is sufficient — so there is no testability problem. As long as everyone agrees that SOMETHING is provided - no matter how ineffectual - it is very testable. If we try to go beyond and say how much or of what quality we get in trouble. this is the same strategy used for WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1 We say that text must be provided but we don’t say it has to be good. just what its purpose is. and you do here this also makes it less controversial — and it therefore makes it easier to get in. We can never require quality - because it is relative and opinion. But we can get this on the map as being important and then fight over time to get it good by providing examples and tools.

non-numerical values is also defines somewhere — yes?

I suggest you BOLD and ITALICS and provide a link for all words that are in the glossary so that anyone reading this knows that those ambiguous words are all defined. Save you a lot of comments on vagueness.

Best

gregg

On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Lisa Seeman notifications@github.com wrote:

based on greags comment on the lst: Content and information is provided that helps users understand complex information, long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West), forms and non-standard controls. Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values unless an understanding of mathematics is a requirement for the using this content.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32#issuecomment-278085325, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3n3gsZynp3ZShsx3di9K1aYI1B0Cks5raLEGgaJpZM4K9HXj.

[jspellman]

The sentence on adding non-numerical increases confusion about the SC and increases problems with interpretation across different cultures. For example, a 60 degree day would be cold to Jan, but would be delightfully warm to me. The SC is much stronger and clearer without it, especially where we are not giving a quality evaluation, just whether or not the information exists. Recommend deleting the final sentence: "Where an understanding of mathematics is not a primary requirement for using this content, reinforce numbers with non-numerical values."

[lseeman]

@jspellman That is a real problem Jeene as that s the only accommodation we have for dyscalculia Do you think we should just leave them out altogether?

Also in your example the site knows the context. it can say " normal for this time of year" etc. I can not off hand think of a case that this is a real problem

[jmcsorle]

Hi Lisa - I don't necessarily agree that taking the last sentence off means that we are not addressing the needs of people with dyscalculia. The first part of the statement says that Content is provided that helps users understand an array of various types of information, including numerical information. I think that the last sentence could be converted into a technique, or perhaps we could add additional information in a use case or in a glossary term.

I definitely understand the importance of bringing dyscalculia to light. Most people don't know what it is and some researchers are now thinking that it may be as common as dyslexia, so it is important that it be addressed.

[lseeman]

        If u want make the last sentence a separate sc, in a separate pull request. Just deleting it is not an option that will get consensus on cogaAll the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter---- On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 02:30:00 +0200  Jan McSorley<notifications@github.com> wrote ----Hi Lisa - I don't necessarily agree that taking the last sentence off means that we are not addressing the needs of people with dyscalculia.  The first part of the statement says that Content is provided that helps users understand an array of various types of information, including numerical information.  I think that the last sentence could be converted into a technique, or perhaps we could add additional information in a use case or in a glossary term. I definitely understand the importance of bringing dyscalculia to light.  Most people don't know what it is and some researchers are now thinking that it may be as common as dyslexia, so it is important that it be addressed.  —You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.   

[jmcsorle]

A pull request has been created for this issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/118

[jspellman]

Lisa, I'm quite familiar with dyscalculia -- I have a dear friend with it. I think it is an important need to include in WCAG 2.1. The advice on numbers seems to be in a variety of success criteria. I am always conscious that we have to be careful to give consistent advice on a topic. I do want to be sure that we address dyscalculia. Let's make sure there is at least one specific success criteria for numerical information. Right now I'm so confused what is where, that I am not clear myself where I have seen it. When this rush is over, let's circle back and make sure that it is clearly addressed.

[mbgower]

Overall comments

I find this one of the more troubling of the proposed SCs. I don’t understand what the rationale is in trying to morph 3.3.5 and 3.1.5 into a single more confusing SC. Without substantively changing 3.3.5 or 3.1.5, it should be possible to incorporate COGA techniques and address these concerns. I believe there is a potential for a new SC dealing with numeric presentation.

---

Where an understanding of mathematics is not a primary requirement for using this content, reinforce numbers with non-numerical values.

I believe that number handling could become a new SC, with date, time, money, temperature and a range of numeric representations of meaning covered. If number is removed from the proposed scope of 3.3.5, then the additions cover long documents and positioning. For positioning, it’s tempting to look at 1.3.3 Sensory characteristics, which has bearing on orientation and visual location. Directions are not necessarily best placed in the perceivable category; however, 1.3.3 may help with guidance and wording.

---

Suggested Priority Level

What is the defence for both moving an existing AAA level SC to AA level and also making it more complex? If one was making it less complicated, I could see a case…

---

Glossary

Long Documents: 300 words or more

300 words is less than a page of normal text in a word processor. That’s not what I would normally consider a long document. A better place to align this guidance might be 2.4.10 Section Headings. As a AAA level criterion, it should be more malleable to change (since as far as I know, no jurisdiction requires AAA). Realize that there's been a lot of discussion on hot being allowed to change existing SC; would have thought adapting AAA would be the least controversial.

Complex Information: Something with at least 3 parts where at least 2 of those parts interact with each other in multiple ways.

This definition doesn’t really help me. What is the relationship between this definition and Understandable language?

---

Description

navigation, operability...understandable

I believe it is very important to try to separate SC criteria into their separate principles as much as possible for clarity and proper categorization. This SC seems to be a bit of a kitchen sink.

The note in 3.1.5 Reading Level is highly relevant to what I think is trying to be accomplished here:

Note: Different sites may address this Success Criterion in different ways. An audio version of the content may be helpful to some users. For some people who are deaf, a sign language version of the page may be easier to understand than a written language version since sign language may be their first language. Some sites may decide to do both or other combinations. No technique will help all users who have difficulty. So different techniques are provided as sufficient techniques here for authors trying to make their sites more accessible. Any numbered technique or combination above can be used by a particular site and it is considered sufficient by the Working Group.

Another clear reason why I think 3.1.5 is the one that should be modified to include much of this material, not 3.3.5

the provision of context sensitive help, tooltips and explanation of jargon.

All of which are context-sensitive help.

However if non-numeric alternatives are provided

This seems to be already covered underneath your proposed Labels or Instructions changes. Why is it repeated here?

Promoting clarity when complex information is presented by providing a summary or keywords

This is already covered by G86, Providing a text summary that can be understood by people with lower secondary education level reading ability, which is a technique for 3.1.5 Reading Level. The criteria for reading level is pretty esoteric, but I’m not sure 300 words in length is an accurate way of assessing complexity.

People who find reading or language difficult can be helped by a chart or graph

This aligns with another 3.1.5 technique, G103: Providing visual illustrations, pictures, and symbols to help explain ideas, events, and processes

[detlevhfischer]

Description:

"the use of non-standard controls in Web forms"

If this reference to non-standard controls stays in the description I think there should be an example in the bullet points how a non-standard control can provide help for users with cognitive or learning disabilities. A tricky issue will be that advice towards operation of non-standard controls (say, "drag the slider to increase and decrease the value") is either input-specific and relatively clear (as in the example given), or input-neutral and more complex (because the dragging advice will not work for keyboard or screen reader users), which would make it harder to understand for users with cognitive disabilities.

Promoting clarity when complex information is presented by providing a summary or keywords will make the information more accessible to all users, especially users with cognitive accessibility needs.

Is there empirical evidence that adding a summary of keywords to complex information really helps? In the first place, it adds information (increasing complexity), and by enlisting just keywords it removes the syntax that helps users put these keywords in relation. It may well help - I am just curious whether this has been empirically tested with users. Another thing would be a simplified version that retains but simplifies relationships.

People who find reading or language difficult can be helped by a chart or graph.

I find the chart or graph example not really fitting for the topic of help - it seems more at home in SCs that promote the use of graphics as an additional alternative mode of communicating information. A better example might be the inclusion of an image of a passport pointing out the location of the passport number (which has been used somewhere else in the COGA SCs) - this is what I would see as image-based help (with a good alternative text for non-visual users).

People who do not know their left from right will be able to use navigation systems.

I am at a loss what this exactly means, for what this is an example. Is it something already covered by SC 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics (do not rely on visual location / orientation) where something like "select an option in the box at the right" would fail the SC)?

Suggested wording change: Description, first bullet point: Current: "then the likelihood that they will have no issue in processing the data is high." Suggested: "then the user will understand the temperature data more easily."

[lseeman]

See my suggestion above to split it

That should address it

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

[lseeman]

@mbgower We have slit out the last sentece into a different SC. we have also made it stand alone and not changing 3.3.5 or 3.1.5,

Adding keywords - is realy identifying them so they can be bold or highlighted. this helps people find the content they need.

I know you might not think 300 words is very long but it is for slow readers and other people with LD.

It is OK if there is an overlap with a AAA item. Having items as techniques at AAA is not very helpful. we are trying to make a testable SC that can be more widely applied.

[lseeman]

@patrickhlauke Adding keywords - is realy identifying them so they can be bold or highlighted. this helps people find the content they need. it is not adding more content No question patrick, for slow readers with dyslexia can be helped by a chart or graph instied of long wordy explanations . in other cases a image is helpful. That is why there is more then one sufficient techneque

happy to change the Description . I agree with adding better examples as well. I think we need some semantics for the modality of an explination!

An example of people who do not know their left from right are again , many dyslexic people. SO GPS navigation systems that say turn right, there is a 50 percent chance they will turn right. Giving an image or allowing them to personlize the terms solve the issue (such as turn to the passenger side)

[johnfoliot]

Not trying to be critical, but in many countries "turning to the passenger side" would result in a left-hand turn: England, Ireland, India, Australia​,​ South Africa as well as much of the Caribbean​. Therefore, I do not think that this is a good example. Additionally, this SC appears to suggest that authors should instead provide Cardinal Directions (North, South, East and West), which could be interpreted as stating that a GPS system, instead of voicing "turn left" would instead voice "turn east". I am sure this is not what this SC is requesting (as it appears to me that there would be an equal chance that some users would remain confused), yet as proposed it could be interpreted that way.

Additionally, while customization of a GPS device's audio output seems to be a reasonable request, I question what this example has to do with "Web Content"? We need to be careful as not being seen as attempting to boil the ocean, and we should keep our examples focused on web content and web delivery platforms.

[lseeman]

John you map the term to the word you want so this is not a problem

[awkawk]

Updated the issue description to reflect the FPWD text and reopening issue.

[lseeman]

new wording (done with Jan) based on feedback: Complex information, long documents, numerical information beyond simple referencing of whole numbers, relative and cardinal directions and non-standard controls have available supportive content of at least one of the following: A summary; instructions, a supportive graphic or chart ; a table; at least two emphasized keywords; non-numerical representations of numerical content.

define "simple referencing of whole numbers": using a decimal positive integer without additional calculations or fractions

to do:

research on long document size clearer definition of complex information

[lseeman]

new proposed wordimg

For long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions, multi page forms and non-standard controls one of the following is provided

Charts, tables or graphics are provided to aid the comprehension Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values A summary is provided At least two keywords are visually emphasized in long documents Instructions are available for non standard controls context sensitive help is provided For multi step forms, signposts should be provided to clarify the broader context including steps completed, current step and steps pending. alternative terms are available for relative and cardinal directions

[lseeman]

Help and support: comprehension support for long documents, complex numerical information, and directions is available via charts, tables, or summaries; emphasis of key words; instructions for non-standard controls; or information about a user's position in multi-step forms.

(michaels proposal)

definition of complex numerical information: numerical informaion other than simple numbers and decimiles

[GreggVan]

you need to define “comprehension support”

what does it mean exactly

if you mean the list in the SC then it should be

Help and support: for long documents [ALL?? ONE??] of the the following are true charts, tables, or summaries are provided for any complex numerical information, or directions key words are emphasized non-standard controls have instructions; multi-step forms provide information about a user's position in the form.

definition of complex numerical information: numerical information other than simple numbers and decimals

you also need to define long document — and then I wonder why short documents don’t need to be understandable?

also needing definitions Key words non-standard controls complex directions I am also worried that this looks like a shotgun approach that just captures a bunch of techniques (all good advice but not good as SC)

g

On May 23, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Lisa Seeman notifications@github.com wrote:

Help and support: comprehension support for long documents, complex numerical information, and directions is available via charts, tables, or summaries; emphasis of key words; instructions for non-standard controls; or information about a user's position in multi-step forms.

(michaels proposal)

definition of complex numerical information: numerical informaion other than simple numbers and decimiles

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32#issuecomment-303487362, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3iSWqiCSaof-bjCqNVA30rUfpLuTks5r8yKxgaJpZM4K9HXj.

[DavidMacDonald]

Here's a try:

Help and support:

For long documents one of the the following is true:

• charts, tables, or summaries are provided for any complex numerical information, or instructions
• key words are emphasized

For forms, the following are true:

• non-standard controls have instructions;
• multi-step forms provide information about a user's position in the form.

Here's a stab at some definitions: Keywords: Words which are fundamental to the comprehension of the passage. Non-Standard controls: Non-native interactive elements which are not a named control in the host language.

[GreggVan]

concerns with this SC

I appreciate the goal - but this is one where we have lots of issues to resolve I think.

As worded

• all of these items are required.

• every page on the W3C site would need a summary, (this page has 500 so please add a summary to each of these surveys capturing all of the issues on the page -- and if the summary on a long survey is over 300 words - does it need a summary as well?)

• this is not implementable. -- I would suggest that before we advance any SC like this -- we, the working group, show how it can be done by practicing it on each of the web pages in our GL space. Not all of WAI but all of GL. If we find that too much work -- or are not allowed to by W3C policy - then how can we require everyone else to do so or fail 2.1. (i.e. How can we post 2.1 if we are not willing to follow it ourselves.)

• Instructions on controls are required but "non-standard controls" is not defined. (David defined on list as
  Non-Standard controls: Interactive elements which are not a native control that has a name in the host language. Question: if I use a standard control and name it "Floogle stopper" I do not need to provide directions?

• Keywords is not defined a suggesion was
  Keywords: Words which are fundamental to the comprehension of the passage. Okaaaaay. Now we need to define 'Fundamental to comprehension' in a way that everyone will know when any word is fundamental to comp or not. I would think that most of the words in the document would be (e.g. if you removed them could the person still understand the document with the words replaced by FOO.)

• for multi-step forms. If the form length is not know (e.g. each question's answer determines what additional questions will be asked) how do you do that? Is just saying page 8 of ?? good enough? If so then the SC needs to say so. "perhaps "the number of pages completed in a multi-step form and the total number if known".

• what is the non-numerical values of each of the transactions in my checking account when they vary from .09 (a bank test) to 140,000.00 ? (any graphical representation will not fit on a page or be unreadable)?
  How would you do this for a spreadsheet with with 500 numbers in a grid?

• relative and cardinal directions need to be defined.
  I understand 'cardinal' but don't understand what the alternate terms could be (this is not a showstopper if there are techniques for this but I didnt see them in the github discussion. is saw these two - but both are incomprehensible to me

• Using a standard mechanism for the platform or technologies exists for personalization of relative and cardinal directions and terms

• Providing alternative terms relative and cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West) where personalization is not supported. The second seem to just be repeating the SC. And the first is not anything I know of. I am sitting with my laptop. where would I find that? and if something said " New york is north and east of washington -- and I am sitting in Main -- what would you replace NORTH and EAST with?

[jake-abma]

Despite the fact that the SC is very understandable in its motives the additional content as a simplified version of the original will probably never make it as a AA level as this will place such a burden on the whole development process that we'll see lots of resistance.

In summary there is relevance in inclusive user experience and optimal usability for all but this should be the basis of every design, not an extra on the side. This solution as it is right now is too broad and as a best practice AAA for now.

• Complex information is relative and as such impossible to nail down, the definition doesn’t make it more clear right now.

• Long documents, 300 words doesn't feels like the right number even when this is a fact for some people it’s not for the general public.

• Numerical information can be very simple on it’s own like the number of a house number, should this be explained?

• Relative en cardinal directions, isn't cardinal directions already a simplified help method for people to understand?

• Help users understand forms is a very broad topic and may need it own SC based on research?!

• Non-standard controls, When is a control non-standard? When we use ARIA is that non-standard? When we overwrite a native control with another role or aria-roledescription, does it make the native control non-standard? If we build a slider properly according to the specs instead of using the input type=”range”, will the result be non-standard?

• The definition of complex is quite complex… ☺

"The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that navigation, operability and the ability to complete tasks associated with a website is fully understandable and accessible to people with cognitive accessibility needs through the provision of context sensitive help, tooltips and explanation of jargon.

• This intent is somewhat idealistic but feels like it will never be possible, when doing it right an IT product is already trying to make it as easy as possible and this level is still to complex for certain individuals. User research from Nielson Norman shows “and only a third of people can complete medium-complexity tasks” https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/. This won’t be fixed by sensitive help, tooltips and explanation of jargon.

• Also I see am issue that the content writer must recognize the needs for content help/adjustments, if he's not capable himself should he not be a content writer?

• Another one to think about… too much extra info on a page to serve all cognitive needs makes the page more difficult to understand, more cognitive overload which creates another paradox here.

• Although I do understand the intent of the 'Testability', it's a vague judgement call for the beholder.

[lseeman]

based on the survey coments and the coga call yesterday

Comprehension support is available via one or more of the following: For numerical content: Charts, tables, graphics or non-numerical text content are available that summarize numerical information; For forms: non-standard controls have instructions, and multi-step forms provide information about a user's position in the form. Long blocks of text :

• are divided with headings or keywords are visually emphasized or
• a summary is provided

For directions: Alternative terms are available for relative and cardinal directions.

There are exceptions where:

• the content will be penalized for not conforming to a given style (such as a dissertation or a Ph.D. proposal);
• a different structure is an essential part of the main function of the site (for example, a game or a reading test);
• if the style is an essential part of the main function of the site, such as a literary work;
• for numerical information where the target audience is in a profession that requires a knowledge of math;
• real numbers are present and do not require math operations or calculations to understand the meaning of the numbers

Definitions: Keywords: Author-defined terms that identify the purpose of the passage. (Note the understanding section will describe the process of identifying keywords) Non-Standard Controls: Scripted, interactive elements which do not behave like a named control in the host language Long Blocks of Content: are sections of text that are not divided by a header, list, or named region and are 300 words or more (or xx characters in Chinese and Japanese)

[lseeman]

This is from Jan who is having touble with github today.. we think the new wording addresses the issues and the overlap is needed becuse:

Instructions for nonstandard controls (3.3.2 - A): The only reason this SC does not meet the needs defined in this proposed SC is that it does not require instructions – it allows for the use of labels or instructions. this is a gapa

Information about a User’s Position in a Multi-step Form (2.4.8 - AAA):and Keywords (3.1.3 - AAA): and Headings (2.4.10 - AAA): • In the understandings document, it explains that 2.4.10 is included at Level AAA because: o it cannot be applied to all types of content and it may not always be possible to insert headings.  For example, when posting a pre-existing document to the Web, headings that an author did not include in the original document cannot be inserted.  Or, a long letter would often cover different topics, but putting headings into a letter would be very strange.

• The fact that it’s AAA and cannot be applied to all content is the reason that we need to have headings as an option for large blocks of text unless we reword them

Also Keywords (3.1.3 - AAA): • Calls for “specific definitions” and is AAA. While it includes jargon and defines it as words used in a particular way by people in a particular field, what we are asking for is for content authors to identify words they believe are important to the understanding of the content and to visually emphasize those words, not necessarily define them. • It would be more difficult to make 3.1.3 AA than to simply require keywords in long blocks of text to be visually emphasized.

[lseeman]

As per discussion on todays call I changed the wording to "Comprehension support is available for the following:"

[steverep]

I have a small comment on the last exception:

real numbers are present and do not require math operations or calculations to understand the meaning of the numbers

I think the word "real" needs to be dropped here, or at least replaced with a different adjective. Real has a very specific meaning in mathematics to distinguish from imaginary or complex numbers.

[jnurthen]

Lisa, Can you please clarify what is meant by

• real numbers are present and do not require math operations or calculations to understand the meaning of the numbers

I'm really not sure what is exempted by this. Would tax software (for the general public to complete their tax returns) fit into this exemption for example?

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 at 10:38 Lisa Seeman notifications@github.com wrote:

As per discussion on todays call I changed the wording to "Comprehension support is available for the following:"

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32#issuecomment-307175017, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABpQPyidz_GiaFAY-d-hQlXV9D-ZHbkmks5sCDGugaJpZM4K9HXj .

[lseeman]

For directions: Alternative terms are available for relative and cardinal directions. for help and support. Alternative terms - should be alternative content IE For directions: Alternative content is available for relative and cardinal directions. as a picture is also realy useful or map and is a successful techneque