Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?

+1 to Jon

The narrative has always been (AFAIK) that single "A" SC are those that if
not met are complete "walls" - there is no work-around available to the end
user, and it is a total catastrophic fail, while "AA" SC are those that
introduce complexity or "pain" to the end user, but work-around's exist
that experienced users with disabilities could overcome (without any
comment on amount of effort to achieve), which echoes what I believe Jon
also said.

JF

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
> wrote:

> >Who would argue that the placing of 1.2.3 Audio Description etc. as a
> level A criterion has hastened its adoption?
>
> SC 1.2.3 actually allows for a media alternative or audio description.
> The requirement for Audio Description SC 1.2.5 is actually AA.
>
> My understanding is that one distinction between Level A or AA was used is
> that level A items had less chance of a work around.  That is without
> alternative text or keyboard access there isn't much that can be done
> unless you have Watson to provide you with alt text.  But many of the AA
> criteria are about providing you multiple ways to do something.  E.g.
> multiple ways to locate a page within a set of pages, etc.  Allow the user
> to double check their input for error prevention , etc.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
> Vis Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
> See you at CSUN in March!
>
> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged
> and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>
>
> From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 4:50 PM
> To: John Foliot
> Cc: WCAG
> Subject: Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
>
> Thanks for the reaction, John.
> Given 2.0 is effectively two levels: do it (A and AA) and ignore it (AAA),
> taking all of the 'do it' criteria and putting them into a single level in
> 2.1 would seem to me to give greater flexibility going forward while fully
> maintaining backward compatibility.
> Speaking of backward compatibility, altering the numbering or requirements
> of the 38 currently required SC is going to pose a more confusing
> experience than what I'm proposing, yet I have heard that proposed by a
> number of individuals.
> " I suspect it defeats the purpose of the current A, AA, AAA ranking
> system, which was arrived at for each SC through a composite of criticality
> and feasibility to deliver."
> I get the historical reasoning behind 3 layers of categorization in 2.0,
> but it seems rather academic, given how it has been adopted and the
> experiences of the last decade. How many people would argue that level A's
> like Sensory Characteristics and Language of Page are as critical to
> accessibility as AA's like Focus Visible or Headings and Labels? Who would
> argue that the placing of 1.2.3 Audio Description etc. as a level A
> criterion has hastened its adoption?
>
> Maintaining the status quo risks putting us in a situation where someone
> may take the complexity of 2.1's new interspersed A's and AA's, and simply
> reject all the AAs, even the ones that already existed or start doing some
> kind of piecemeal approach (all of the old A's and AA's plus the new A's).
> I suspect such a fear contributes to why many of the proposed new SCs are
> positioned as level A, even where their less complex forebears were AA or
> AAA.
>
> What I'm proposing provides an adoption path for folks without having to
> undertake a lot of additional research or investigation.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
>
>
>
>
> From:        John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> To:        Michael Gower/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
> Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2017-01-09 12:42 PM
> Subject:        Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Interesting idea, but I suspect it defeats the purpose of the current A,
> AA, AAA ranking system, which was arrived at for each SC through a
> composite of criticality and feasibility to deliver.
>
> Given that, as noted, most entities today demand A & AA conformance (while
> almost completely ignoring AAA Success Criteria) I think it is worth
> questioning the use of A, AA, AAA in the Project Silver effort, but since
> WCAG 2.1 needs to be 100% backward compatible, I fear this idea may
> introduce more confusion than help.
>
> FWIW, I personally would like to see all new SC under any given Principle
> (or secondarily, Guideline) continue from the existing numbers. One example
> (which has made the rounds on this list) is color contrast for actionable
> icons, versus just text or images of text. I single this one out because it
> is an augmentation of an existing SC, and I offer as well some proposed
> language (first go-around) for when a SC is 'enhanced' or augmented like
> this.
>
> <example>
>
> 1.4.10 Contrast (Minimum) Plus:
>      In addition to meeting Success Criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) the
> visual presentation of linked iconography also has a contrast ratio of at
> least 4.5:1 (AA)
>
> </example>
>
> (In other words, the new Success Criteria clearly indicates that it is
> being built "on top" of an existing SC, by clearly stating that both the
> 'old' AND 'new' SC must be met for 2.1 compliance).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> JF
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> For a couple of meetings, we've discussed various possible scenarios for
> how to updated WCAG for the 2.1 release (as proposed in
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering)
> I have something I would like to float to the group.
>
> What if we made all existing 2.0 AA criteria into level A in 2.1 and
> introduced new criteria at AA and AAA levels?
>
> Potential benefits:
> Almost every jurisdiction currently measuring against WCAG 2.0 does so
> against Level AA. As far as I know, very few jurisdictions measure ONLY
> level A, and I am not aware of any that enforce level AAA.
> So by making the existing A and AA requirements all become level A in 2.1
> we would be resetting the baseline without altering any numbering.
>
> It would allow sites that currently meet 2.0 AA to immediately report
> compliance with 2.1 A, and then begin ramping up to meet the newly
> introduced requirements.
>
> As was made pretty clear in our discussions, the numbers are crucial for
> cross-referencing and reporting on compliance. But realistically, folks
> focus on the level for targets and they use the textual name of the
> criteria for meaning. With the letter level now established as the yard
> stick for measurement, and level A established as backward compatible, we
> would be free to introduce numbering updates for the new SC in whatever
> manner makes the most sense (for clarity, consistency, etc).
>
> Making existing criteria all be level A makes things less messy. For 2.1,
> there are two dozen new Level A proposed and almost as many new level AA.
> If all those went ahead as proposed and you are trying to report both WCAG
> 2.0 and 2.1 compliance for your product, imagine how convoluted your
> mappings are going to be, and how much additional churn that is going to
> create for teams. Such things will have a significant affect on adoption
> rates for 2.1.
>
> I'm sure folks will perceive pros and cons to this, but I thought I'd don
> my body armour and throw it out there.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion