Re: WCAG extension

Hi Sailesh,

For more background I believe that the extension idea was discussed at
the April 7, 2015 working group meeting. Check the minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03

The HTML WG and modularity and extension info may also be useful:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#modularity
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#Modular
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionHowTo
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications

It seems that back in April, Josh and Michael did some work in the
Wiki on a WCAG Extensions Framework document:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework
In that document, it says, an extension wouldn't impact a country's
law that referenced WCAG 2.0 until the law changed to be WCAG 2.0 +
extension conformance claim.

Best Regards,
Laura

On 7/27/15, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
> Josh, Laura et al
> Here is my take on your first question: "Can extensions modify WCAG 2.0
> SC?"
>
> The term extensibility applies really to technologies and not to
> specifications like WCAG 2.
> WAI-ARIA  extends HTML for instance because "The incorporation of
> WAI-ARIA is a way for an author to provide proper semantics for custom
> widgets to make these widgets accessible, usable, and interoperable
> with assistive technologies".
> I reviewed the references in Boland's email as well as Laura's and
> could not relate the term "extensibility"  with specs like WCAG2.
>
> Just like WCAG1 evolved into WCAG2, WCAG2 can evolve into WCAG 2.1 or
> 2.2... or directly into WCAG3.
> WCAG 2 is a guideline or standard if you will, and is often
> incorporated  / referenced into law.
> "Changing" WCAG2 by an extension may require changes to such laws too
> (also noted by Wayne).
> In a sense, WCAG2 has already extensibility built in through the 3
> levels: A, AA and AAA.
>
> Jonathan's more concrete thought like, "For example, we might want to
> create a 2.5 touch gesture guideline similar to 2.1 for keyboard
> access" gave me a sense of what extensibility might refer to in the
> context of WCAG2.
> I would not call such a change an extension but WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 etc.
> ... a new recommendation entirely.
> And specifically with regard to the touch gesture guideline being
> suggested, I believe it is addressed by WCAG 2. Refer to
> "keyboard interface - interface used by software to obtain keystroke input
> Note 1: A keyboard interface allows users to provide keystroke input
> to programs even if the native technology does not contain a
> keyboard".
> In this context, also refer to WAI-ARIA goals in the Introduction[1]
>
> In short, I am not really clear  of "extensibility" as it applies to WCAG2.
> Changes to WCAG2 can be done in increments  so it is pushed out in a
> shorter time frame as compared to the complete overhaul from WCAG 1 to
> WCAG2. Such a change will permit to normative content of WCAG2 based
> on implementation experiences and new developments.
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#introduction
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sailesh Panchang
>
>
> On 7/27/15, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan and all,
>>
>> The coordinated piece is under Harmonization section in the proposed
>> principles. They currently read:
>>
>> * "Extensions SHOULD NOT conflict with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
>> conformance requirements."
>>
>> * "Extensions SHOULD harmonize with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
>> conformance requirements."
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles#Harmonization
>>
>> Any ideas for improvement?
>>
>> Again, the meaning of the keywords SHOULD NOT and SHOULD are taken
>> from  RFC 2119.
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On 7/26/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Joshue,
>>>> We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting are
>>>> available. [1]
>>>
>>> I agree with the general consensus from the meeting.  I was not present
>>> so
>>> I
>>> wanted to make sure you heard from me.  One item that came up in the
>>> MATF
>>> was that we were thinking about creating guidelines within the scope of
>>> the
>>> 4 main principles.  For example, we might want to create a 2.5 touch
>>> gesture
>>> guideline similar to 2.1 for keyboard access.  We'd want to make sure
>>> that
>>> these conventions are coordinated between task forces.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Avila
>>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>>> SSB BART Group
>>> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>>>
>>> 703-637-8957 (o)
>>> Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:10 AM
>>> To: WCAG
>>> Subject: WCAG extension
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On Tues call we discussed WCAG extensions, and I am bringing the topic
>>> to
>>> the list.
>>> We would like your input on these three main areas that we see are the
>>> main
>>> potential areas of contention:
>>>
>>> Some core questions, for WCAG extensions are:
>>>
>>> - Can extensions modify WCAG 2.0 SC?
>>>
>>> - Must conformance to 'WCAG 2.0 plus extension' be also backwards
>>> compatible
>>> with WCAG without extension?
>>>
>>> - Can extensions even conflict with each other?
>>>
>>> On Tues call for some general background we had general agreement that:
>>>
>>> For question 1:
>>> There was a general sense on the call of 'yes', an extension may alter
>>> the
>>> conformance requirement for a given SC. For some context, this would
>>> mean
>>> that an extension could increase WCAG conformance requirements but not
>>> decrease WCAG conformance requirements or difficulty in any way.
>>>
>>> For question 2:
>>> The sense from the group was 'yes'. Core WCAG is now and will always be
>>> stable and the basis for conformance, the extension may meet some new
>>> need
>>> that doesn't exist in legacy user agents and therefore this proposal may
>>> be
>>> considered to fit into our model of backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> For question 3:
>>> The feeling was we want to reduce the potential for extensions to
>>> conflict
>>> in anyway, and co-ordination and supervision of TF work is therefore
>>> vital.
>>> We will work to ensure that TF facilitators are in tune with what each
>>> special group is doing, to reduce the potential for dissonance.
>>>
>>> To be practical however, we won't know until we start development of
>>> these
>>> extensions what the potential for conflict actually is.
>>>
>>> We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting are
>>> available. [1]
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 15:44:56 UTC