Discussion on Defining Task Flow / Process

[rachaelbradley]

We discussed defining Task Flow / Process at the CSUN meeting (minutes / slides)

Key Questions

• How should we define processes (or related word)?
• Do we need 1 or two definitions?

Some Points for Consideration

• WCAG 2.x Process is defined as "series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity"
• WCAG 3 Process is defined as "A sequence of steps that need to be completed to accomplish an activity / task from end-to-end."
• WCAG 3 Task flow is defined as "Testing scope that includes a series views that support a specified user activity. A task flow may include a subset of items in a view or a group of views. Only the part of the views that support the user activity are included in a test of the task flow."
  -- Discussion leaned towards including all of the view or at least everything above the relevant subsection in the code in the process.
• In WCAG 2.x, processes can move outside the system (Example: to a phone for authentication)
• In WCAG 3, Process is used (along with view) to scope conformance claims in WCAG 3. "WCAG 3.0 therefore defines two ways to scope content: views and processes."
• In WCAG 3 there seems to be a narrower use of "process"
• WCAG 3 also include "multi-step processes" and "complex process"

Requirements in WCAG 3 Draft

• Provides context that orients the user in a site or multi-step process.
• Steps in a multi-step process are numbered.
• Processes, including authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).
• Processes can be completed without memorizing and recalling information from previous stages of the process.
• For each process with a time-limit, a mechanism exists to disable or extend the limit before the time-limit starts.
• For each process with a time-limit, a mechanism exists to disable or extend the time-limit at timeout.
• For each process with a time-limit, a mechanism exists to disable the limit.
• Processes can be completed without being forced to read or understand unnecessary content
• Processes can be completed without entering unnecessary information.
• Process completion does not include exploitive behaviors.
• Processes can be completed without navigating misinformation or redirections.
• Preselected options are visible by default during process completion without additional interactions.
• In a multi-step process, the interface supports stepping backwards in a process and returning to the current point without data loss.
  -- Information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required to be entered again in the same process is either auto-populated, or available for the user to select.
• Data entry and other task completion processes allow saving and resuming from the current step in the task.
• In a process, the interface indicates when user input or action is required to proceed to the next step.
• Information needed to complete a multi-step process is provided at the start of the process, including:
  -- number of steps it might take (if known in advance),
  -- details of any resources needed to perform the task, and
  -- overview of the process and next step.
• The steps and instructions needed to complete a multistep process are available
• Visual illustrations, pictures, and images are available to help explain complex ideas, events, and processes.
• Complex information or instructions for complex processes are available in multiple presentation formats.

[dbjorge]

On "one definition of Process vs separate definitions of Process/Task Flow": In general, I think we should avoid discussing/wordsmithing new terms and definitions until we have a specific use case that actually requires them. I'm inclined to just stick to one definition unless we actually need multiple. I think just "Process" seems reasonable for the requirements listed, and that it would be sufficient for us to just have the relevant conformance section define conformance scoping in terms of "Process".

On "what should the definition of Process be": In the interest of backwards compatibility of requirement language, I generally would prefer that when considering definitions of terms that already exist in WCAG 2, we try to follow a principle of "stick with the existing WCAG 2 language unless there is a specific motivation to change it." I think the WCAG 2 vs WCAG 3 definitions are semantically similar, with the main functional difference being WCAG 2 using "user action" where WCAG 3 uses "step". Is there something specific that motivates that change?

[hidde]

+1 to one definition, I think for our intents and purposes there is little benefit to differentiating between tasks and processes.

[rachaelbradley]

::Chair hat off:: Can we combine the WCAG 2 and WCAG 3 definitions to something like this:

Process: A series of views [or part of views] associated with user actions, where each action is required in order to complete an activity from end-to-end, regardless of the product the view is located within.

[bruce-usab]

I like this, but the qualifier “regardless of the product” makes me wary since (1) ‘product’ is not a defined term and (2) implies a change of view which is not under direct control of the author responsible for the rest of the process.

On the other hand, an enduser getting sent to a different website for what is (for them) a single process is exactly one of the issues we are trying to address! Might the ‘regardless of the product’ aspect be addressed by a note rather being part of the glossary term?

[GreggVan]

Several thoughts

1. i dont know why we need the ending phrase-- but if we mean it to span websites and technologies then i would say that.

Process: A series of views [or parts of views] associated with user actions, where each action is required in order to complete an activity from end-to-end, regardless of the technologies used or whether it spans different sites or domains.

2. We need to limit this somehow to somethign that the author has control of - or else my process is finding a give for my uncle and that requires me to use several different sites.

that would make it

Process: A series of views [or parts of views] associated with user actions, where each action is required in order to complete an activity from end-to-end, and the whold activity is under the control of the vendor, regardless of the technologies used or whether it spans different sites or domains.

under the control of the vendor: the vendor has created, or contracted for it to be part of an activity provided by the vendor

3. If you want a definition product you will run into some problems. One definition might be

Product
something that is offered for sale, or equivalent to something that is offered for sale

NOTE 1: Products includes but is not limited to websites, documents, software (including webapps), licences, rights, and services.
NOTE 2: Products includes things that are sold as well as things that are given away but could be sold or use in exchange for something. Since currency can be bought and sold, it is also a product.

This is more inclusive than WCAG requires - but it works and allows WCAG to be used more broadly.

However, some people/places/standards talk about "products and service" (which is somewhat confusing since a service is often the only product a company sells. )

So we might want to say "Product or service". But then there may be some processes that are actually neither.

[mraccess77]

I personally would avoid the term "vendor" as a site may use multiple vendors like payment form in a process. It comes down to what the provide has under their control - choosing a particular vendor is likely a choice they made and thus it should be included if it's part of the process embedded or part of the pages/unit in scope.

[GreggVan]

@mraccess77

Good thought. Perhaps "provider" is a better term. It is whomeve is the owner or the one responsible for the site/whatever is being evaluated.

that would make it

Process: A series of views [or parts of views] associated with user actions, where each action is required in order to complete an activity from end-to-end, and the whold activity is under the control of the provider, regardless of the technologies used or whether it spans different sites or domains.

under the control of the provider: the provider has created, or contracted for it to be part of an activity provided by the vendor

[rachaelbradley]

A few questions which we can discuss at today's meeting if discussion here doesn't answer them:

• What about web technologies that do not have sites or domains? I think that issue is how we ended up at "product"
• Which should be evaluated as part of a process: The part of the view related to the process, the part of the view related to the process and all content that comes before it visually and programmatically, or the entire view?

There is also a small typo "whold"

[GreggVan]

@rachaelbradley

What about web technologies that do not have sites or domains? I think that issue is how we ended up at "product"

WCAG is about web content -- not web technologies that are used off the web. And by definition there isnt any web content that is not at a URL. (and no website without a domain that I know of). So not sure I understand the question.

Which should be evaluated as part of a process: The part of the view related to the process, the part of the view related to the process and all content that comes before it visually and programmatically, or the entire view?

Good question!

• everything on all pages/views/ui-contexts that include something needed to complete the process.
  • WHY?
    1. accessible path
    2. non-interference (distraction, flash, sounds the play longer than 3 sec)
    3. Web page is the Unit of evaluation (or view/UI-Context is) -- in which case you need to evaluate all views/ui-contexts that have something on/in them that is needed for the process.

PS - suggest you use "entire" instead of "whole". We had problems with international commenters when we used "whole".