RE: Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2

Josh,

Ok, so with your example of stronger color contrast, how will it “satisfy the original WCAG 2.0."

I’m just thinking that wording is not correct.

I’m sure the development community will say, “why should we meet a stronger color contrast for LV extension if our current contrast meets the original already?” based on this definition.

"Extensions may provide additional accessibility requirements over and above WCAG2, but in any case must satisfy the original WCAG 2.0."

Hope that helps. 

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: josh@interaccess.ie
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:48 PM
To: ALAN SMITH; Mike Elledge; John Foliot; 'Katie Haritos-Shea'
Cc: 'David MacDonald'; 'CAE-Vanderhe'; 'Jason J White'; 'Sailesh Panchang'; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'
Subject: Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2

Hi Alan,
 
I am confused as a requirements management lead for many years, how can something be an additional requirement “over and above” and yet still satisfy the original? The two cannot co-exist.
Yes, they can. I understand that this stuff can be confusing btw.. but the idea is that the extensions will _extend_ the scope of the original. Additions to SC 1.4.3 are a good example whereby an Low Vision extension may have stronger requirements for colour luminosity than the original - so if the conformance claim is made against WCAG SC 1.4.3 + LVTF (extension 'X' with stronger requirements) both are satisfied if the UI that the claim is being made against has the stronger colour luminosity/ratio requirements.
 
HTH
 
Josh
 

Also, has anyone taken these new extension requirements and seen if in fact they actually can be applied in such a way?

I may be wrong.

Alan


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Mike Elledge
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:56 PM
To: John Foliot; 'Katie Haritos-Shea'
Cc: 'David MacDonald'; 'CAE-Vanderhe'; 'Jason J White'; 'Sailesh Panchang'; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'
Subject: Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

Associating extensions with existing success criteria would provide context to evaluators and developers, so I'm all for it.

I'd also suggest simplifying David's suggestion to the following:


"Extensions may provide additional accessibility requirements over and above WCAG2, but in any case must satisfy the original WCAG 2.0."

Thoughts?

Mike

On Monday, February 22, 2016 2:23 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

Hi Katie,
 
My concern is making new Success Criteria (whether brand new, or modifying a new SC to make it ‘stronger’) user-group specific. It perpetuates a ghetto mentality that runs counter to our bigger message (aka Universal Design). 
 
The fact that a TF that is looking specifically at issues related to Low Vision users (or Cognitive users, or Mobile users – which sort of is everybody) helps bring focus to those types of needs, and ensures that the next-gen WCAG addresses shortcomings that specifically affects that group, but I will suggest that increasing the contrast requirements [sic] will benefit not only LV users, but perhaps Mobile users and Seniors as well, so making it a “Low Vision” Success Criteria in name feels (to me) wrong.
 
I had previously suggested an additional “dot-number” scheme (such as your suggested 1.4.3.1) and that may be one way forward, although again, looking at how we’ve addressed other “strengthening” requirements previously (for example 1.4.3 versus 1.4.6) suggests that creating new Success Criteria (still grouped under one of the four main ‘headings’ of P, O, U, or R) is more ‘flexible’ and/or consistent moving forward.
 
If I were King of the World (which sadly I’m not) I’d look to author new Success Criteria across all of the current Task Forces, and once a specific SC meets group approval, we roll it into a “Living Document” type scheme, and that we’d articulate specific Milestone dates, at which point all “approved” new SC, along with the current WCAG 2.0 becomes WCAG 2.1 [sic] – fully realizing that we can’t actually do that today with the current WCAG WG Charter today (although there is some suggestion that we may be able to do a WCAG 2.0-2016, which would get around some of the concerns about a living document WCAG, although it seems to me to be a silly distinction in many ways). 
 
Perhaps we need to look at addressing that problem at a higher level?
 
JF
 
From: Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
 
I can see and suggest relating any new SC to a specific WCAG 2 SC  number when it makes sense to do so - such as a new level of Minimum Contrast from LV such as; 1.4.3 + LV -- or -- 1.4.3.1LV. In the circumstances where there is not relevant existing WCAG 2 SC and a new one needs to be added such as; (for say a touch target size) place it under the relevant Guideline (which I'll pretend a new GL '2.5 Make content East to Operate' (for example only) add a new SC 2.5.1-Mobile: Touch Target (Minimum).
In any case, developers and tester will be using multiple checklists.
I am not married to this suggestion. It is just an idea.
My two cents.
Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545
On Feb 22, 2016 10:10 AM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
+1 (again).

I strongly feel that adding new SC, as opposed to making edits to existing SC is the right way forward, even if (in practice) a new SC modifies/strengthens an existing SC. We’ve done that already (as I noted previously).
 
Additionally, I worry about speaking in terms of WCAG 2.0 + [user group] style conformance reporting, as once we start getting new success criteria from different Task Forces this will spin into a confusing and onerous task of reporting conformance. While I recognize that the current Charter does not allow for any other means of reporting the addition of new Success Criteria (such as perhaps a WCAG 2.1), I’ll stick my neck out and say that we collectively need to address this short-coming sooner rather than later.
 
JF
 
From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
 
should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?
 
Interesting.
 
You might have put your finger on it. 
 
when I read 
"Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?
 
 
I read it as   “offer modifications to the existing set of WCAG 2.0 success criteria” meaning that it would extend the set — not edit the SC.
 
 
I think that editing the SC or re-using those number will create great confusion.
 
instead I suggest that new number be used - corresponding to the particular extension
 
SC XM-1      (for example for the first on in the Mobile extension) 
 
or  
 
SC XM-3.1.7   (for mobile — where 3.1.6  is the last SC number in 3.1 series   
 
If it is an extension of a particular SC it could say 
 
 SC XM-3.1.7 (which extends  SC 3.1.3)    

gregg 
 
On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
 
1. I understand that "The extension is not changing the SC in WCAG
2.0, it is modifying the SC in the context of the extension", then
should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?
2. Yes, "All of the details regarding numbering and association with
the techniques are details that do need to be figured out", but this
extension requirements doc should explicitly state that the SCs  in an
extension will not duplicate  an SC# from the WCAG 2.0.
Else, an SC in the extension that has  a number identical to a WCAG
2.0 SC will surely create confusion  as Greg pointed out in his first
email especially with regard to documentation for techniques and
understanding.
It may not be very problematic for some changes  e.g. SC 1.4.3 in the
extension say, only changes the ratio from 4.5:1 to 5:1 to make it
stronger.
But consider what will happen, if say, SC 3.3.2 in the extension
begins with "Labels and instructions" instead of "Labels or
instructions".

I believe the above should be addressed, then the statement suggested
by David will absolutely fit in and not create room for any confusion.

Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang