Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Quick Start Guides/Category name for Understanding links

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search


For most tips, the Learn More section includes a link to Understanding WCAG pages(s). For example the third bullet below:

Learn more

Currently the draft category name for the Understanding links is 'Background'. The concern is that this is not a comprehensive enough label, because the Understanding WCAG pages include specific implementation guidance in the Techniques. The Understanding WCAG pages include the success criteria, intent (background, benefits, impact), examples, related resources, techniques and failures, and glossary.

We would like to come up with a short category word to describe the Understanding WCAG links.

Please add your thoughts below — including other Pros, Cons, and comments — to any or all of the Ideas, and feel free to add other Ideas!


Background and Techniques

  • Pros: clearly says what they can find in Understanding - first they wade through background then they get specific techniques
  • Cons: 3 words
  • Comments
    • +1 clearest and most accurate {Shawn, 21 August}
    • I like this the most. {Eric, 2015-08-27}
    • -1 is it really "background"? will people understand "techniques"? {Shadi, 28 August}
    • +1 Clearest explanation in my opinion. 'Background' refers to a story behind the thinking of something, and 'Techniques' describes ways to implement the findings of such a story. {Jon, 31 August}
    • -1, too wordy. I am actually quite happy with a standard word like "Background" or "Overview." Those are conventional terms, broad enough to encompass both the Understanding documentation as well as the Techniques. {Sharron, 1 September}
    • -1, too technical {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • -1 too wordy {Anna Belle, 1 Sep}
    • +1 It makes the most sense {Melody Ma, 2 Sep}
    • +1 clearest to me {James, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}

Guidelines explained

  • Pros: Does what it says on the tin, links to initial category
  • Cons:
  • Comments
    • -0.5 mildly no - Will readers know "guidelines" means WCAG? {Shawn, 21 August}
    • -0.5 inconsistent use of "requirements" and "guidelines" {Shadi, 28 August}
    • No, agree with Shadi about inconsistent use of terms {Sharron, 1 Sept}
    • +0.5, I like that it gives a reason to visit the link {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • 0 (neutral) {Anna Belle, 2 Sep}
    • -1 missing techniques {James, 3 Sep}

Requirements explained

  • Pros:
  • Cons:
  • Comments
    • +0(neutral:-) Think I'd be OK with this one. {Shawn, 21 August}
    • +0.5 good reference to "requirements" earlier on {Shadi, 28 August}
    • -1 Requirements is normative language. 'Understanding' something implies an informative approach. {Jon, 31 August}
    • Neutral on this one {Sharron, 1 Sept}
    • +0.5, I like that it gives a reason to visit the link {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • +0.5 OK though "Requirement" is already used as bullet 1 in this prime real estate {Anna Belle, 2 Sep}
    • -1 missing techniques {James, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}


Understanding: SC 3.3.1 Error Identification or
Understanding: Error Identification, SC 3.3.1
  • Pros: Consistent
  • Cons: Doesn't say much about what it is, a bit vague
  • Comments
    • +1 {Shawn, 21 August}
    • +5 short and re-uses WCAG terminology {Shadi, 28 August}
    • OK with this one {Sharron, 1 September}
    • -5/+1, Would need to change the link label to remove the repetition of 'Understanding' {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • -0.5, ditto Kevin's comment {Anna Belle, 2 Sep}
    • -1 vague{James, 3 Sep}
    • -1 doesn't tell me anything{David, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}


  • Pros: Bit clearer about what the link will provide
  • Cons: Still a bit vague though
  • Comments
    • +0(neutral:-) {Shawn, 21 August}
    • -0.5 seems too vague {Shadi, 28 August}
    • Redundant to "Learn More" -1 {Sharron, 1 Sept}
    • -1, too vague {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • 0 - OK, but prefer "Background" {Anna Belle, 2 Sep}
    • -1 vague, missing techniques {James, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}

Additional information

  • Pros: A bit clearer about what content contains
  • Cons: Similar to 'Miscellaneous'
  • Comments
    • -1 not specific enough {Shawn, 21 August}
    • +0.5 works for me {Shadi, 28 August}
    • Again, seems redundant to "Learn More" -1{Sharron, 1 Sept}
    • -1, too close to the idea of 'Learn more' {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • -1 ditto Sharron & Kevin {Anna Belle, 2 Sep}
    • -0.5 i think this is still vague, every link will provide additional info one would assume {James, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}

Understanding and Implementation

  • Pros: Helps the user know they will get to a page where they can understand the SC and techniques to implement the SC
  • Cons:
  • Comments
    • Just another idea {Brent, 27 August}
    • -1 not sure that "implementation" is needed {Shadi, 28 August}
    • A bit wordy...and they are both long words :) {Sharron, 1 Sept}
    • +0.5, a bit on the wordy side, but does explain what it is (would need a change to the link text though) {Kevin, 1 Sep}
    • +0.5 accurate, but wordy {James, 3 Sep}
    • Comment {Name, Date}

Criterion Background

  • Pros: It's less vague
  • Cons:
  • Comments
    • +0.5 Just tossing it out in case it's helpful. See "exegesis" for what sparked this suggestion. {Anna Belle, 4 Sep}

Exegesis ;-)

  • Pros: Underscores the resemblance of WCAG to sacred text?
  • Cons: I plead the 5th
  • Comments
    • Feel free to delete this whole cloth {Anna Belle, 4 Sep}
    • Seriously, the resemblance to Biblical interpretation got me to thinking.... Of course this is much closer to law. My husband is a lawyer who crafted environmental laws for 25 or so years, so I asked him what they called parallel documentation for the law. There are three terms used: (1) Legislative History; (2) Regulatory Background; (3) Preamble. He said 1 and 2 are more generally used and understood. I was particularly interested in #2. It's that word background -- but background of what. So is it always "success criteria"? Assuming so, I made the suggestion above. Hope it helps.{Anna Belle, 4 Sep}

@@ other ideas here :-)

  • Pros:
  • Cons:
  • Comments
    • ... {name, 00 Month}