RE: Trying to be clear - was making the draft for CR accurate

John /all,

Agile is a great approach where you have lots of opportunity to adjust in time if necessary.
But is it possible to adjust 2.0 SCs (not so far as I know) or later on 2.1 SCs (probably also not…?!).
If you’re not able to frequently inspect and adapt in an agile environment you’re undermining the principles.
In our case this may result in a proliferation of SCs, some of them very closely related while not needed (i.e. like the contrast SCs now) or probable SCs who should be closely related (i.e. AA vs AAA) but because of completion in an earlier version and newer insight in another version may look like they come from different worlds (i.e. like Target Size where possibly  the wording / exceptions may be completely different for the AA in 2.2 if it makes it)

Cheers!
Jake





From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
Sent: vrijdag 26 januari 2018 15:57
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Subject: Re: Trying to be clear - was making the draft for CR accurate

​​
Lisa wrote:

> Unless we know we have done our mandate I do not see why anything will improve for 2.1 or silver.

Lisa, I am not sure why you or others continue to think that this effort is an "all or nothing" activity.

You seem to imply that we'll go, lickety-split, from WCAG 2.1 to Silver, despite the fact that numerous people in this Working Group are fairly certain that we'll see a 2.2 before we see Silver (and honestly, I personally believe we'll also see a 2.3, maybe even a 2.4) - but most importantly, we're establishing a new paradigm, a publishing cycle, that will see updated SC being published roughly every 18 months at the W3C. WCAG 2.1 isn't the finished product, it's just a stop along the way, and the next stop is coming in 18 months (after 2.1 is published). We're publishing what's ready now, so that it can be taken up by developers NOW, and then we immediately return to the pile of SC that we didn't finish, and get the next batch ready - rinse and repeat every 18 months until we're "finished" (and does anybody truly believe we'll ever be "finished"?)

Back in the bad old days, when the perception was of accessibility experts sitting around stroking their beards<https://alistapart.com/article/tohellwithwcag2> and striving for perfection at every turn, it took years - YEARS! - for change, yet seemingly every 6 months there were fundamental changes and additions to the ecosystem we're trying to make accessible, not just for users of screen readers, but for all users.

This is and was untenable, as in that instance we *WERE* failing our mandate, because our Guidance and Technical standards were becoming increasingly out-of-date. (And to be crystal clear, we write Technical Standards and Guidance, not legislation, and we should NOT be unduly influenced by those legislative requirements - if the US Government wants to take 18 years to update their Section 508 legislation, or delay adding web accessibility requirements to the ADA, then that is unfortunate for those impacted users living in the USA, but this is the World Wide Web, not the USA Web. That slow and steady legislative process is designed to benefit lobbyists and large companies and not Persons With Disabilities IMHO)

We've spent close to 2 years working on a large batch of new Success Criteria. Over that period of time, some of the proposals have not made the same amount of progress as others. You seem to suggest that somehow, with the release of 2.1, those SC proposals that did not make this round of publishing will be jettisoned, or otherwise discarded - that work on those proposals will stop dead in their tracks, and WCAG 2.1 will be the next 8+years Standard at the W3C.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE!


> Maybe it is just our timelines focus or our processes

Perhaps, but those are the rules by which we operate at the W3C - a member-funded consortium that is technology driven. There have been many changes to W3C process, changes mandated by the membership, and individuals here can rail on about how that's "wrong", but that's the W3C way today, and we either accept it or leave the W3C (and leaving the W3C really isn't an option for many of us - certainly not myself). Their ball field, their ball, their rules - simple. Additionally, we have no proof to suggest that this "Agile-like" standards development process is failing anyone at the W3C, only that some members struggle with the new way the W3C wants to operate.


> The first step in addressing a problem is knowing that you have one.

Fair enough, and I respectfully suggest that one of those problems is an unrealistic expectation that WCAG 2.1 was going to solve all problems for all COGA users in WCAG 2.1.

I'm not sure how or why that came to be, but it is my impression that this is the understanding that you (and perhaps others) have brought to the table. To suggest that the COGA TF have made *no progress* is simply false. To say that in this publishing cycle COGA wished that more SC had made the grade - that's fair - and perhaps we need to look at how to ensure more effort and attention is applied on those SC that missed this round, with a goal of getting more published in 2.2.

But this isn't a binary, all-or-nothing discussion, we're progressing towards an ideal and goal, and each step forward is just that - a step forward. It doesn't mean that the journey is over after one step, and suggesting or expecting that the first step would cover a mile's worth of work is unrealistic, be it to address the needs of people with Cognition or Learning Issues, or users with Low Vision, or users who are _______.

The editorial language you've highlighted states:

Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities

It doesn't say all, it doesn't make a claim to be complete or address all use-cases... no it simply states that following these guidelines will make the content accessible to more (a wider range of) users than if you do not follow the guidelines.

This is fundamentally a discussion about whether the glass is half-empty or half-full. Nobody is suggesting that there isn't part of the glass that has nothing in it, simply that many of us choose to see it as half-full, and we're working towards filling it more in WCAG 2.2, WCAG 2.3, and beyond.

It is my hope that members of COGA could see it that way too.

JF



On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:42 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrew.

I hope i is OK if I am clear as I can be.

 I understood that our mandate in 2.1 was to address cognitive, low vision and mobile. So were as this language was reasonable at the begining,  it became less and less accurate as the draft developed. (Until the last few weeks, it looked like  there would be at least some reasonable accommodation for people with cognitive disabilities in 2.1. )

My opinion is that following our current draft does not provide minimal accommodation for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. I can not speak for the task force but for myself, I do not believe that anyone who wants to make content usable for people with learning and cognitive disabilities should be looking at these specifications.   I would not be surprised if ADA law suits against WCAG compliant sites would win.

The first step in addressing a problem is knowing that you have one. Unless we know we have done our mandate I do not see why anything will improve for 2.1 or silver.

I think our credibility is at risk if we say we do things we do not do,  and if we keep this language we will simply fail CR. I am ok working on it after we go to CR but I do not think this is editorial. We need to change the scope of the specification to fit what we have done. Maybe Michael can let us know if changing the scope is editorial.

All that being said I know a lot of people on this list have made a huge effort, and I do not want to minimise that. Maybe it is just our timelines focus or our processes but we have not done what we set out to do.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:34:34 +0200 Andrew Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote ----
Lisa,

Thanks for raising this on the list. I have a few thoughts on this that I think are worth considering.

This language has been part of WCAG since WCAG 2.0, this is not new language in the abstract.

I do not believe that WCAG 2.0 fully addresses accessibility concerns for any group of users with disabilities, including people that with cognitive disabilities, and the same is true for WCAG 2.1.

I am concerned that we aren’t possibly setting up the expectation that WCAG 2.1 is somehow taking steps backwards in accessibility. If the language changes to say “begins to address learning disabilities and cognitive limitations at conformance level AAA” it may lead people to that conclusion, and indicate that there is nothing in the AA success criteria that benefits this group of users. Does the COGA TF believe that there is nothing at all in WCAG 2.0 that provides benefits?

The text that is proposed to be changed is editorial. We could change it now, but to be clear, we can also change it during the CR period.

What I would like to propose is that the Working Group have a discussion about how this text could be changed when we have more than two hours to make that change. Since this was just discussed on the COGA call this morning (https://www.w3.org/2018/01/25-coga-minutes.html) it is definitely a late-arriving change request, and one that can be addressed during CR. Can we commit to having the Working Group have a collective discussion about this language and arrive at consensus language early in the CR period?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 10:44
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: making the draft for CR accurate
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 10:43

I think the draft for CR has to change the introduction:

from

Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.

to

 Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices and begins  to  address  learning disabilities and cognitive limitations at conformance level AAA,


I am not sure if consider low vision to be addressed or "begins to addressed"

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fil.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Flisaseeman%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C5e0aa0123fd84199723e08d5640a76a7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524918465112191&sdata=dNUnFC87oYq%2BSeakcaAAxu0QxfEjE%2BCdodGYVTmaZLo%3D&reserved=0>, Twitter<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSeemanLisa&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C5e0aa0123fd84199723e08d5640a76a7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524918465112191&sdata=YbFr1AxwaSfG%2BqrXmKpZkXWjItdVB0zcSorhLmDXom4%3D&reserved=0>








--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------