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

Hi Shawn,

Thank you: I should have said that we are a WAI working group, and of course I agree with you and others that conforming with WCAG does not guarantee an accessible experience.

However, each of the "Tips for..." section pages begins with a statement that "These tips are good practice to help you meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements. Follow the links to the related WCAG requirements," as well as featuring the WCAG sidebar prominently in 
the content order. These two features incorrectly led me to believe that these tips are all about helping folk meet WCAG.

I am still in favour of publishing what we have, though perhaps the above sentence show be tweaked immediately.

So, once we have clarity as to whether the tips are indeed "help you meet WCAG" or not, I could then mark those that seem out of alignment with what is required for conformance (e.g. the wise advice within Tips for Designing regarding spacing my layout and viewports: good stuff to 
do...but not required for any level of WCAG compliance.)

In the meanwhile, I am marching through Easy Checks, and find myself asking the same question: are all the Easy Checks intended to be a subset of what one would check during comprehensive conformance evaluation? ... or are they intended to align with a more generalist approach to 
improving accessibility? I realize that there are several caveats up front, however I think the reader also deserves precision as to whether we're talking WCAG (and perhaps even at what Level) or not.

For the Tips (and the Easy Checks), consider this analogy.
If I walk into the office of the California government responsible for (amongst other things) fuel emission standards,
and they had a brochure called "Some of The Simpler Things Your Car Ought To Have Regarding Emissions", as a person who knows very little about engines I am going to (perhaps wrongly) assume that everything that brochure calls for is a subset of what my car needs to pass the emission 
standards. If some things mentioned are mandatory, while some are not ("Um, sir, the emission standards are actually getting a bit long in the tooth... all we experts here at the bureau actually think you really ought to do something a bit different that what the standards call for if 
you really care about the planet") ... while there is also a disclaimer saying that there are mandatory things not mentioned in the brochure (and as a naive visitor I am not sure if those words are just there because the Legal Department insisted, or whether indeed there are lots of 
mandatory things missing), then I would be certainly confused (and perhaps frustrated).
*The key here is that I didn't walk into any office: I walked into the the office responsible for fuel emission standards, and so there is a perhaps-confounding expectation that the guidance will be for their standard.
*And just because on this particular day I am only interested in whether my VW passes the emission standards, it doesn't mean I'm not interested more broadly in what's best for the planet.However because I chose to visit this particular office, there is a good chance that I am interested 
in and expecting clear guidance regarding conformance.

While each one of us, of course, has strong ideas on how WCAG could be even better, I feel we have a fiduciary duty to support the standard, as well as an educator's duty to distinguish tips that aid compliance vs. any tips that would never be mandatory for conformance.
Perhaps each tip (and check) should be designated as one of:
() something you must do to achieve a particular WCAG conformance level, OR
() one of many ways to achieve something that is mandatory for WCAG conformance, OR
() always just a best practise
... of course worded more plainly.

Am I making sense?

- David

**


On 2015-09-23 16:36, Shawn Henry 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
>

-- 
David Berman, RGD, FGDC LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/bermandavid> Twitter @davidberman <http://www.twitter.com/davidberman> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/davidbberman> Skype davidberman.com <skype:davidberman.com?chat> Google Plus 
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DavidBermanCom/posts>
David Berman Communications | berman@davidberman.com | @davidberman | blog <http://www.designedgecanada.com/author/david-berman>
+1-613-728-6777 | 340 Selby Avenue, Ottawa K2A 3X6

High Level Advisor, United Nations | GDC ethics chair | Ico-D Sustainability chair | Carleton University Access Network chair
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Accessibility courses:/ Ottawa | Europe | Vancouver | Victoria
/Upcoming:/ Toronto | Mexico City | Dublin | Korea | Bahrain
Watch David on CBS <http://www.wtoc.com/story/17588481/scad-plans-revitalization> | Do Good book news: <http://www.dogoodbook.com/> "Don't just do good design ... do good!"

This message may contain proprietary information. Unauthorized disclosure/copying/distribution of contents prohibited.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus