Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Weekly Survey - Due 23 Sep 2015'

Good points all.  I would only add that I am *strongly* in favor of not
delaying the publication of the set of three Tips - Developing, Designing,
and Writing. I am also conscious from my work in the field that WCAG
conformance does not necessarily translate into accessible results for
all.  Entire groups - low vision and cognitive for example - are left out
of mere WCAG conformance and the SCs are certainly showing their age.

As long as we are clear - which I believe we are - that "These Tips are
best practice, some are WCAG requirements" we are not in real danger of
confounding anyone.  This is a Quick Start Guide to accessibility (rather
than WCAG conformance) and there are other resources for those who do this
work for reasons of strict conformance.

I realize that this can be confusing for some but there is a risk of being
outdated and/or irrelevant if we stick to the narrow confines of
conformance, in my opinion.

Thanks for your attention to this, it is not an easy line to draw for sure.

Best,
Sharron

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> On 9/22/2015 8:06 PM, David Berman via WBS Mailer wrote:
> ...
>
>> ---------------------------------
>>> Resolutions of 18 September
>>> ----
>>> Please look at the RESOLUTIONS from the 18 September Teleconference.
>>> Indicate your approval or concerns with the resolution passed at that
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>   * ( ) I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
>>   * ( ) I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
>>   * (x) I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the
>> Resolutions,
>> and I explain them below.
>>   * ( ) I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my
>> review
>> into the comments box.
>> Comments:
>> I support all of the resolutions, except that I don't buy into the "Tips
>> cover good accessiblity practice. Some are required to pass WCAG". Sharron
>> and Shawn, you'll recall this came up in our very first conversation: and,
>> having joined the Tips project in the middle, I will certainly continue to
>> loyally help construct whatever mandate of tips the group wishes. However
>> I
>> still feel that offering people tips that don't clearly trace for them to
>> complying with identifiable WCAG SC risks confounding rather than
>> educating
>> them successfully. WCAG is overwhelming enough for the beginner: why
>> confuse them with content that does not help lead them to compliance?
>> Furthermore, there are no shortage of WCAG-traceable tips we could choose
>> from: quick wins that encourage people that they are capable of eventually
>> learning how to comply with all the success criteria relevant to their
>> role. We are a WCAG working group, not a generalist universal design
>> working group, and so I think this is one place where people should expect
>> nothing but guidance that helps them march towards compliance on specific
>> criteria, while also letting them know:
>> 1. whether the technique is the only way to comply with a given SC, and
>> 2. generally making the entire challenge less daunting.
>>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I do understand your point, yet am having trouble converting it into a
> specific change request for these Tips. Specifically, I don't recall seeing
> your concerns with including the tips that are good practice but not
> explicit WCAG requirements.
>
> Would you point out which such Tips you proposed that we not include?
> (ideally, and provide links to your comments on those :-)
>
> Also, a couple clarifications:
> 1. Re: "why confuse them with content that does not help lead them to
> compliance? ... We are a WCAG working group, not a generalist universal
> design working group".
> Actually, EOWG is a W3C WAI Working Group, but not the WCAG Working Group
> -- we are broader than WCAG. EOWG has previously chosen to promote good
> practice to improve accessibility that sometimes goes beyond minimum WCAG
> requirements. We are contentious of making that clear; for example, in Easy
> Checks we said things like "(This is best practice in most cases, though
> not a requirement because a form control label can be associated in other
> ways.)" and in the Tips pages we link to related WCAG SC information, and
> carefully avoided saying they were requirements.
> 2: "whether the technique is the only way to comply with a given SC"
> That is beyond the scope of these Tips pages. We are pointing to SC with
> lists of techniques, but not to specific techniques.
>
> EOWG had discussed whether we needed to identify the few Tips that go
> beyond minimum WCAG requirements, verses having an overall statement at the
> beginning. Perhaps we need to revisit that? I now wonder if we need to
> delay this first version for it, or if we can publish the first version and
> continue working through it?
>
> Regards,
> ~Shawn
>
>
>


-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*