Theme:Usability of the Standards:Discussion

Discussion of this Theme

Jared adds: We will likely have difficulties in finding a balance between developing standards that are technology specific and standards that apply to future technologies. This means that the more specific we write to one technology, the more likely it is that the standard will not apply to new technologies. And the more technology agnostic the standards are, the more difficult it is to define things. I think a defined set of terminology may be necessary that spans across all technology areas may be necessary to allow us to be more technology neutral while also making the standards understandable.

--Whitneyq 17:13, October 6, 2006 (MDT) adds: We also need to consider how usable the actual document we produce is. Is the language we use clear and direct? Is it organized to make it easy to both understand and use? Is it written for the appropriate audiences?

--Jonathan The access board's "guide to the standards" document is and was helpful is that capacity but it is an interpretation of the law and is not legally binding. Perhaps continuing to create and update supplimentary materials like this will be useful.

--Kate Walser (October 21, 2006, 2:28 PM EST) adds: Adding to Jared's thought - it will be important to consider success criteria, as the WCAG 2.0 does. The objectives / success criteria will help keep 508 timeless. As an example, something along the lines of keyboard access to all elements is already important and will continue to be important with rich Internet apps that enable drag and drop. Thoughts on starting that list of success criteria? (WCAG 2.0 provides a great basis, so we'd "just" need to add to it for other domains as well. I wonder if those types of criteria exist somewhere for those other domains - e.g., in usability / design best practices)