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

Would something like "These tips are best practice that help you meet 
WCAG requirements" help address both sides? I think that all tips are 
useful to meeting WCAG. For example, even "adapt to user technology", 
which seems most separated from *success criteria*, actually directly 
related to *guideline 1.3*. So, unless David has contrary thoughts, I 
believe that this statement is correct and at the same time expresses 
that these tips are not WCAG requirements themselves. Does this work?

Best,
   Shadi


On 24.9.2015 15:48, Sharron Rush wrote:
> 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 outdated and/or irrelevant if we stick to the narrow confines of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
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, WAI International Program Office
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:09:35 UTC