Re: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria

Hi Andrew and all,

Does "Accessibility support documentation is available for at least
two technologies" mean that the SC must currently work in 2
technologies such as PDF and HTML? Or does it mean that it can fail in
1 of the 2 technologies but we merely need to document the pass and
failure?

I am asking because the answer to this question will impact the
Adapting Text SC. From what I have gathered and from testing that SC
can not currently be reliably tested in PDF [1] [2]. As described in
Issue 349, VIP-PDF Reader:

* Has no adjustment for spacing underneath paragraphs [3]
* Can be difficult to set a window size of 1280px by 768px [3]
* Has internationalization issues [4]
* Presents difficulties for authors in deciding if a failure is a user
agent issue or a technology issue [5]

However, Cascading Style Sheet/HTML/JS technologies are quite able to
adapt to the specified spacing metrics [6][7].

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

[1] Results of VIP-PDF Reader Tests for Issue 78
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_VIP-PDF_Reader_Tests_for_Issue_78
[2] Google spreadsheet of VIP-PDF Reader Results
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LRsAtLReBL6LnbvJQ4biQ1ER1fKbh8MDWnH
qbsW7B1o/edit#gid=1481238311
[3]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/349#issuecomment-328969743
[4] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-323662527
[5] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-323961512
[6] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_Bookmarklet_Tests_for_Issue_78
[7] Google spreadsheet of Bookmarklet Results
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LRsAtLReBL6LnbvJQ4biQ1ER1fKbh8MDWnHqbsW7B1o

On 10/12/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> AGWG’ers,
>
> On the call today and from the survey at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results we seemed to gather
> some support for adopting a modified version of the WCAG 2.0 CR Exit
> Criteria.
>
> The WCAG 2.0 criteria are here:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/
>
> Proposed exit criteria:
>
>   1.  At least 5 conforming Web sites
> 1<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote1> are available,
> of which
>      *   At least four conform at level AA,
>      *   At least one conforms at level AAA;
>   2.  At least two implementations
> 2<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote2> exist for each
> success criterion added in WCAG 2.1 (Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0 do not
> need new implementations);
>   3.  Accessibility support documentation
> 3<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote3> is available
> for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating
> system/user agent/assistive technology combinations);
>   4.  All sufficient techniques listed in Understanding WCAG
> 2.0<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/> at the end of
> the Candidate Recommendation period contain test procedures;
>   5.  The Working Group has responded formally to all issues raised against
> this document related to any implementation efforts during the Candidate
> Recommendation period.
>
> Changes from WCAG 2.0:
> #1: changed from 10 sites, with 4 at A, 4 at AA, and 2 at AAA
> #2: removed
> #3: now #2, included mention of only getting implementations for new SC
> #4: now #3. This was debated and no consensus was arrived at on the call.
> More on this below.
> #5: now #4, unchanged
> #6: now #5, unchanged.
>
> The accessibility support documentation item had different opinions. Some
> had opinions that we needed to make sure that this was addressed for the new
> success criteria, but others felt that this was already largely covered by
> the work done in WCAG 2.0.  It is worth noting that the documentation (e.g.
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/html-uses1) is
> focused on the accessibility support for aspects of technologies that exists
> on different OS/UA/AT combinations, and it is generally distinct from the
> WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria requirements.
>
> The Working Group needs to decide whether it will perform additional
> evaluations to document the accessibility support for newer technologies,
> such as HTML5, or if the original work suffices for the purpose.
>
> Thoughts on accessibility support documentation?
>
> Thoughts on anything else about this?
>
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Saturday, 14 October 2017 19:44:48 UTC