Re: 1.3.1 question

Dear Katie et. al.

The problem may be as simple as refurbishment.
Question: Does a site that fails to identify semantically significant
regions meet 1.3.1 today? When the site was launched it did, but today does
it? I say yes, until the page undergoes a major change.

At that point it is new code and needs to be audited for conformance. What
passed before no longer passes since there are now techniques to remedy the
old accessibility deficit.

The point is this. Is 1.3.1 violated by lack of deterministic identifiers?
Regarding headers and footers that are semantically void, the answer is
yes. That is binding, how it is analyzed in light of new technology must
change for WCAG to be a living document.

Here is the failure.
A site the uses new technologies to improve its general functionality, user
interface or appearance and fails to correct old deficits that can fixed
with current technology does not conform to WCAG after the general changes
have been made. This applies to any success criterion that could not be
addressed when the site met conformance originally.

This does not rest on techniques, it is simply a matter of a new site (with
an established URL) that no longer meets a normative success criteria.

I think that does it.

Wayne



On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Wayne,
>
>
>
> While this makes perfect sense, and in some governments and elsewhere this
> model is used…WCAG itself cannot require this. Techniques are INFORMATIVE
> and are not required – nor should they be. They present options for how to
> meet the requirements of the SC.
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Dick [mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 4, 2016 1:47 PM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>;
> Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>;
> Paul Adam <paul.adam@deque.com>
> *Subject:* Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> Use the Refurbishment Model.
>
> For years buildings have been exempt form architectural barrier upgrades
> if they met requirements at some point. The next time the building is
> refurbished it is brought up to code. This is to protect institutions that
> adopt building codes early from endless change.
>
> Google and sites like it should follow this model. Next time they change
> anything on their site, they come up to conformance. The techniques were
> not available in 2008 to meet 1.3.1 for headers and footers.  They are now.
>
> Next time a page is upgraded, fix it.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> That is a good idea, but, I am thinking of the conformance issue overall –
> in that case, even though Techniques aren’t relative to conformance – I
> would like to see the Update Model be consistent, across what we do….
>
>
>
> So in that vein, I would like to say that Techniques might best be mapped
> to WCAG or WCAG/UAAG/ATAG specific versions, and then attach what we call
> additional  **Best Practices** to the Requirements (Success Criteria) and
> supporting materials to the NEXT version of the standard – as we see them
> become relevant while folks are still conforming to an older version. Then
> as folks begin to conform to the new version, they will or may have already
> implemented those Best Practices, and will more rapidly be able to conform
> to the new version of WCAG or WCAG/UAAG/ATAG.
>
>
>
> ​​​​​Does that make sense?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545>*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 4, 2016 12:38 PM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; Andrew
> Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>;
> ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Paul Adam <paul.adam@deque.com>
> *Subject:* Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> Hi Katie
>
>
>
> Do you think creating a date field for failure techniques could work? This
> might allow us to post failures as solutions become available.  Companies
> that have sites before the date don't need to worry about these failures,
> whereas new sites would be expected to pay attention to them. Of course
> WCAG WG would have nothing to do with enforcement... but it would give us a
> way to write failures without disadvantaging old sites.
>
>
>
> We could do this in the "Applicability" section. "This failure applies to
> content created after MM/DD/YYYY."
>
>
>
>  We will run into this situation in the next standard where techniques are
> up to date but there missing failures as things on the web change. I think
> this might address our original intent in WCAG 2 of having an ever green
> standard.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> I agree that Techniques can and should be written to address these issues
> today, as they are **one possible way** to achieve the outcome the
> Success Criteria calls for.
>
>
>
> But you are correct, we need to wait  before making any Failures until we
> have provide new Requirements, in an new standard version, that
> specifically states that they address these technologies. IMHO….
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545>*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 4, 2016 11:28 AM
> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Cc:* Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <
> akirkpat@adobe.com>; Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; ALAN
> SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Paul Adam <paul.adam@deque.com>
> *Subject:* Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> ​As per my first email in this thread, ​most of us agree that WCAG as
> currently written can't move the goal posts very easily as new great
> accessible technologies like ARIA are invented, for sites that previously
> met WCAG.
>
>
>
> But I think Paul's fresh eyes do point out something I've thought about
> for a while as we do requirements gathering for WCAG NEXT. And perhaps even
> something we can do now...
>
>
>
> WCAG 2 was designed to be every green. The success criteria were carefully
> written in order to ensure that as new technologies were invented, that
> they could be incorporated into WCAG. For the most part that has happened.
> We created Silverlight techniques, WAI ARIA techniques, and HTML5
> techniques etc.  none of which were mature when WCAG2 was created.
> However, our failure techniques have not kept pace with these new ways of
> doing things because we didn't want to create a situation where an old site
> that met WCAG no longer meets WCAG because a new failure was introduc
>
>
>
> Naturally we want people to use the new technologies where there was no
> previous good solution. For instance, on new web sites
>
> - No page that has visually distinct headers, footers, Nav bars, main
> content, and asides should be without an ACCESSIBLE NAME  (and/or
> ACCESSIBLE DESCRIPTION) for those sections.
>
> - No link text should have an ambiguous ACCESSIBLE NAME  (or ACCESSIBLE
> DESCRIPTION), so the days of click here, read more, showing up in links
> lists should be a thing of the past.
>
>
>
> HTML5 and WAI ARIA have solved these problems with new HTML elements,
> roles, aria-label, aria-labelledby etc...
>
>
>
> So how can we ensure that new sites do take advantages of these new ways
> to solve old problems that previously were just hacked, or mostly not done
> at all?
>
>
>
> I'd like to brainstorm a proposal. What if we create a date field on
> failure techniques? Agencies, legislature, and governments can use these
> date fields to determine if a certain failure is applicable based on when
> the content was created. The government of Ontario is a precident for this.
> They have a date on the AODA, because they understand that solvent
> companies create new web sites every few years. So they require the new
> sites meet WCAG. if we had date fields on our  new failures, then if the
> site was built after the failure was created it would fail SC 1.3.1 if
> there wansn't an ACCEISBLE NAME or DESCRIPTION on a section of  a page, or
> could fail that LEARN MORE link that didn't reference the description
> heading or provide an aria-label or title etc...
>
>
>
> What do you think... could it work for WCAG NEXT, or even this version.?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> I appreciate you sending this out. I had originally replied to the emails
> regarding 1.3.1 and landmarks about the use of landmarks/regions and their
> labeling  as a way to meet 1.3.2 (by these defining and providing a
> meaningful sequence to the page/information structure) as this was
> something I ran into and had be asked about.
>
> Since it is not listed in WCAG 2.0 1.3.2 and I agree that 1.3.2 can be
> subjective, I thought it warranted a question to the team.
>
>
>
> Best.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, April 4, 2016 9:37 AM
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Patrick H. Lauke
> <redux@splintered.co.uk>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject: *Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> Hi All--
>
>
>
> I'd like to understand better how persons who use screen readers feel
> about this issue. With WebAIM surveys indicating increased use of headings
> and regions I worry that we may be underestimating their benefit. I
> recognize that the application of 1.3.2 can be subjective, that flexibility
> in presenting data is important, and that bringing legacy applications into
> compliance can be time-consuming. Ultimately our objective has to be how to
> best serve the needs of users, however.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 8:21 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Patrick,
> Thanks for chiming in, and welcome to the group!
>
> Thanks of course to everyone who is contributing their opinions here, I’m
> just singling Patrick out as he just joined the WG two hours ago… :)
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
> On 4/4/16, 06:54, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Apologies for jumping straight in here after only having been officially
> >nominated/joined...but as this whole discussion around 1.3.1 was the
> >trigger that made me officially join, here's what I've just sent as
> >comment to the survey
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/
> >
> >(with further apologies as this was probably already
> >touched-on/discussed here):
> >
> >Landmarks are not required. "Landmarks are *a* technique to provide
> >information/structure. They cannot be required (nor can any other
> >specific technique/implementation) as at the time WCAG 2.0 was
> >formalised they weren't even in existence/supported, to my knowledge.
> >Claiming they are would retrospectively fail sites that up until now
> >passed on this point.
> >
> >More generally, in my view there is no hard requirement to always having
> >to identify landmarks on every single page, in every single document.
> >Key here is "information important for comprehension will be perceivable
> >to all". Is every instance of a fairly clearly defined footer (perhaps
> >with a heading, a list of links to Ts&Cs, privacy policy, a copyright
> >notice) completely non-understandable to a user who cannot perceive its
> >styling? Will real users be confused by a lack of <footer> element or
> >relevant ARIA role? Further, is a role="region" (another sufficient
> >technique for 1.3.1) then NOT acceptable compared to role="contentinfo"?
> >
> >IF you determine that it is important to identify explicitly which part
> >of the page is the header, which is the footer, which is the main; IF
> >you don't deem it understandable enough for real users if these are
> >simply happening sequentially; IF you deem the structure of the overall
> >page so complex that a real user who can't visually perceive the page
> >structure would be confused/unable to understand it otherwise; THEN
> >something needs to be in place that further clarifies this structure.
> >you can choose aria landmarks, or aria regions, or headings, or some
> >other implementation that may not have even been dreamed up/documented
> >in the non-normative techniques document. the HOW is not important. what
> >matters is the end result: will a real user be less confused /
> >understand the overall structure of the page better than before. jumping
> >from this to "WCAG requires aria landmarks" is reaching.
> >
> >P
> >--
> >Patrick H. Lauke
> >
> >www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> >http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> >twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>