Note: This example shows an outcome implementation procedure that describes how a small organization with modest web resources could meaningfully implement the COGA Usable guidance.
Note: All content here is provide for example purposes only. Only the overall structure is meant for review.
| Name | Provide help and support for users with cognitive or learning disabilities. |
|---|---|
| Author | Example org |
| Review record | {information about the development and review process of the procedure} |
| Approval record | {information about formal approvals of this procedure} |
| Context | Organizations with less than 5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) of total web development resources |
| Scope | This applies to help and support related to Company X's Flagship Product. |
| Supports outcome(s) | Users can obtain help and support |
| Validity assertion | This procedure aims to ensure that stakeholders are exposed to the relevant accessibility guidance, with modest check-in points to ensure the guidance continues to be actively considered. |
Developers in all roles use cognitive accessibility guidance to Provide Help and Support published as a supplement to WCAG 2.
Note: The definition of "use" could change based on the conformance level. For lower levels of conformance, we're primary looking at the proedures an organization has put in place to measure a protocol. These controls help assure users that guidance is being followed, though outputs are not normally measured at this level. At higher conformance levels the output of the procedure implementation will be measured with varying degrees of rigour depending on the level of conformance claimed. All protocols will have evaluation measures. All results of evaluations must be publicy documented at higher conformance levels. At lower conformance levels, documentation of procedures is sufficent.
All roles (designer, coder, manager) read the accessibility guidance.
The team conducts a 2-hour meeting to discuss how the guidance relates to their organization’s site, from each of their roles.
A team member produces a short report describing attention points for the guidance.
The team conducts monthly check-in meetings to discuss their progress on applying the guidance in their daily work, and to refine the plan.
The team performs semi-annual reviews of the help and support resources available on the site.
The report describing attention points serves as a milestone that the procedure has been implemented.
Frequency and duration of meetings related to the task are tracked for a given annual period. Frequency should be 12 / year, duration should be 1 hour / meeting. The score is the actual vs benchmark ratio.
We use the following evaluation procedures in the newly-released Help and Support Evaluation Procedure published as a companion to the Making Contnet Usable Protocol:
When implementation is demonstrated with the initial report, the relevant outcomes score at the lowest level of conformance.
Note: higher conformance levels would require additional evaluation of the implementation procedures, beyond the baseline.