- From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:08:03 +0100
- To: "Niemann, Gundula" <gundula.niemann@sap.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Gundula Ah, I'm clearer now, it's *checking for quality* that is the issue? > The quality of an FAQ cannot be judged during Accessibility testing. > The presence of context help can. I agree quality is a concern. We don't want box ticking of any form. To be clear, my understanding of this SC is it is NOT for context help but for human help or supporting documentation that goes further when someone is stuck even after using any context help. Context help is already covered in SC 3.3.5. Isn't the core problem that we can always more easily check for presence of things rather than quality, what ever the form? Context help may be there but not much use. I remember when context help on official apps was of the the quality level of 'Print Button: this prints the document". Well D'oh. In general, it seems cognitive accessibility makes this problem worse and Silver / WCAG 3 is trying to address ways to make more qualitative testing possible. My feeling is that for the Finding Help SC we can use the "More Details" section to outline the order of preference for the different forms of help and possibly quality expectations. But for now we have difficulty measuring quality for any SC. Steve On 14/04/2020 16:33, Niemann, Gundula wrote: > Hello Steve, > > I definitely agree some FAQ are good. Yet it was mentioned several times during the discussions around FAQ, that 'FAQ-Gaming', that is getting away with a kind-of-dummy FAQ, should be avoided. The quality of an FAQ cannot be judged during Accessibility testing. > The presence of context help can. > Most everyday questions that arise can be answered with context help. > So with 'online-help' I mainly think of context help, explaining the interaction or the purpose of UI elements. > > I agree a full manual-style set of pages or tutorials is suitable only for complex applications. > The size and complexity of documentation and tutorial should match the size and complexity of the application / web site concerned. > > Best regards, > Gundula > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org> > Sent: Dienstag, 14. April 2020 16:18 > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: Finding Help > > Hi Gundula > > I'm interested why you do not feel a well maintained FAQ is not suitable > as a form of self help online documentation? > > Self help online documentation can take many, many forms and I have > definitely seen some that are worse than even the most basic FAQ would > be. Personally I often find a FAQ to be the best format when I have a > specific question in mind. > > If you are considering a full manual-style set of pages or tutorials as > the only suitable form of self help online documentation than I agree > with the the comments others have made that there are many sites for > which it cannot be mandated. > > Steve > > On 14/04/2020 13:54, Niemann, Gundula wrote: >> Hello Rachael, >> >> in fact I do not at all object to requesting a self-help option. To the >> contrary, I highly recommend to request it. >> >> This includes online documentation, context help, application help, … >> >> I do object to accepting an FAQ to fulfill the requirement. An FAQ is a >> nice-to-have, but it does not suffice the intention of the SC: to ensure >> available help for the end-user. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Gundula >> >> *From:*Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> >> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 8. April 2020 20:26 >> *To:* Keim, Oliver <oliver.keim@sap.com>; Niemann, Gundula >> <gundula.niemann@sap.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Delisi, Jennie >> (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us> >> *Subject:* Finding Help >> >> Hello Oliver and Gundula, >> >> We are trying to move Finding Help >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit#heading=h.c1ri43umkho0> >> to CFC and want to work with you to resolve your objections to the SC. >> >> Oliver, we believe we have addressed your point about the balance of the >> bullets by moving the examples from all the bullets to the understanding >> documents. >> >> Gundula, you objected to including self-help as an option but, as Oliver >> and others pointed out in previous conversations and emails, many >> websites and preshipped software can not support a human option. The >> intent of this SC, which I believe is being met with the current SC >> text, was to: >> >> 1. Ensure some form of help was provided and >> >> 2. Ensure it is in a consistent location. >> >> To address your concern that organizations may fall back to the self >> help option only as it is easiest, I've added a phrase to the >> understanding document that states "*Human help is the recommended >> option but *if a human is not available to help, other methods such as a >> Frequently Asked Questions page must be provided. " >> >> Do these changes address your concern? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Rachael >> >> -- >> >> Rachael Montgomery, PhD >> >> Director, Accessible Community >> >> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org <mailto:rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> >> >> "I will paint this day with laughter; >> >> I will frame this night in song." >> >> - Og Mandino >> >
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2020 16:08:12 UTC