good practice; requirements [was: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Weekly Survey - Due 23 Sep 2015']

[+ Vicki since she had a similar comment]

On first blush, it works for me. I'll process it a bit more to make sure.

Except one issue - "good practice" is safer. Gregg V. has issues with "best practice" but I'm not sure what they are...

~Shawn

On 9/24/2015 9:09 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> 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 outdated and/or irrelevant if we stick to the narrow confines of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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:19:49 UTC