Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that alt text was treated as a simple tickable
box that glossed over the nuanced detail. That is plainly not true.

Rather I was wondering if there might be a germ of a technique there to
handle the tensions in witing SCs thatcwe are facing and that Mike and john
so well describe?

Steve Lee
Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors

On 10 Feb 2017 18:32, "Steve Lee" <steve@opendirective.com> wrote:

> Jeanne thank you also ad its helpful to get a clearer idea of the big
> picture.
>
> While that might be seen to someehat relieve the pressure of the 2.1
> deadline I feel we should still work to get as many coga SCs in as
> possible.
>
> It seems that for some there will be a need to position them on scale
> between narrowing the scope to make them easily testable and flexible to
> leave some interpretation in application.
>
> Are we really in the situation that only SCs at the narrow scope but
> testable end of the spectrum can be accepted in 2.1?
>
> If so we are going to have a hard job of compromising the cogs goals to
> get something in.
>
> If again like to mention alt text. While the spec is narrow enough to make
> it testable, the reality of what makes good alt text is much more nuanced.
> The spec offers no comment on the subtleties as far as I know. And as Mike
> mentioned I bet caused some of the longest discussion.
>
> My point is not everything is included in ful explicit detail in wcag, but
> the principle is clearly signposted, in this case that screen reader users
> should be able to understand images! The nuance is in some cases an
> individual may not want to be bothered with the extra noise but others find
> it important.
>
> WAI aria polite / rude at  is similarly a personal thing so hard to
> provide a simple yes no test for.
>
> So can the more controversial coga SCs be handled in a similar way? Or the
> more flexible language accapted. It then raises the issue oven if not
> precisely testable.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Lee
> Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors
>
> On 10 Feb 2017 17:19, "Jeanne Spellman" <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> That is an excellent explanation of some of the realities we are dealing
> with.  I don't think it is depressing, however.
>
> I have great hope for getting a lot of the COGA user needs addressed in
> WCAG 2.1.  But I think what is most hopeful, is that if we don't get
> everything into WCAG 2.1, the new charter for the AGWG commits them to a
> process of continually updating the guidelines -- how often, is still in
> hot debate, but it will NOT be a 10 year wait for the next version.
>
> I am co-leading a task force that is already looking at what will be the
> "WCAG 3.0" -- that won't be the name, it doesn't have a name yet.  We are
> calling it Silver (for the chemical symbol for Silver, Ag, for
> Accessibility Guidelines).  We are starting with a year of user research to
> determine a new structure that will better serve people with disabilities.
> We have a lot of goals, but the key ones are:
>
> * address more types of disabilities
> * be more flexible to update
> * be easier to use
>
> What is relevant to this discussion is that Silver doesn't HAVE  to use
> the design of WCAG 2.0.  It will need to have some core of testable
> requirements that the policy makers and lawyers like, but I suspect (and we
> are waiting on the user research and prototyping) that the value of Silver
> will be a more flexible structure that will encourage designers, editors,
> and developers to integrate more of the COGA user needs in a way that
> doesn't HAVE to be testable.
>
> WCAG 2.1 will be finished in 2018.  Silver is scheduled for a First Public
> Working Draft in 2018 and probably will be finished in 2020-2021.  The
> chairs of AGWG (the group formerly known as WCAG WG) want to publish a WCAG
> 2.2 if there are delays in Silver, or if there is a need for another update
> of WCAG.
>
> What I am trying to say, is that as the new tools and assistive technology
> for COGA continue to be developed, there will be W3C accessibility
> standards coming along that can incorporate them.
>
> This isn't 2008.  If you miss the WCAG 2.1 train, you don't have to wait
> 10 years.
>
> I know that there is a chicken-and-egg issue.  You need the standards to
> encourage developers to build the tools.  You need the tools to justify
> including them in the standards.  I continue to hope that starting to get
> the COGA SC into WCAG 2.1 will encourage the developers to develop more
> tools, which will make it easier to get more COGA standards into the next
> version, whether that is WCAG 2.2 or Silver.
>
> If anyone on the COGA taskforce is interesting in contributing to the
> Silver research (answering surveys, being interviewed -- not too much
> work), please sign up to be a Silver stakeholder. We have over 300 people
> who have signed up to give input into the Silver design so far.  You can
> sign up at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7jxkMzK4HbzK0cyyB
> nkv3cKFJL_ahIwIcbHao7qOZLyDy-w/viewform .
>
> I personally am very committed to continuing to address the complex user
> needs identified by the COGA Task Force with WCAG 2.1 and with Silver.
>
> Jeanne
>
> On 2/10/2017 6:01 AM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
>
>
> Whereas there is no such guide, and it would probably be a major challenge
> to write, I think that many of the issues that we are meeting can be
> predicted when we compare what we have with the following extract from the
> “Success Criteria” section of “Understanding WCAG”:
>
>
>
> “ Each Success Criterion is written as a statement that will be either
> true or false when specific Web content is tested against it. The Success
> Criteria are written to be technology neutral.
>
>
>
> All WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable criteria for
> objectively determining if content satisfies the Success Criteria. While
> some of the testing can be automated using software evaluation programs,
> others require human testers for part or all of the test.”
>
>
>
> I think that there are a few of our SCs where, because of the many
> elements in them and because of some of the concepts in the wording, it is
> difficult for someone to be really certain whether the result is true or
> false when testing. The majority of WCAG 2.0 SCs are quite short and often
> contain only one clear concept. Those that are longer and have multiple
> bullets are, according to what I’ve heard, those that took an enormous
> amount of debate and re-writing before they were agreed.
>
>
>
> I think we may have a few instances where the technology neutrality is
> being questioned. It is also seen as a problem when we hypothesise
> techniques that rely on new untried or predicted technologies as our
> primary way to assure sceptical people that the SC can be met.
>
>
>
> Probably the majority of our problems revolve around testability. Although
> Understanding WCAG talks of using accessibility experts and involving users
> with disabilities in the testing, these are not required. I believe that
> all of those objecting to many of our SCs are very involved in and aware of *the
> current reality* where it is assumed that conformance to WCAG will be
> done by non-experts using either automated test tools or by making
> judgements that require no expert knowledge and no heavyweight processes
> like user testing.
>
>
>
> I think that this last issue is the one the really makes things extremely
> hard in relation to most COGA proposals. When we talk about cognitive
> issues it is all about what people may understand (clearly or at all) and
> whether tasks are too complex for them to perform, etc. None of these
> things currently lend themselves to generally available automated testing
> (and even the clever language understanding/summarising tools are probably
> not really up to providing definitive assurances that people will or will
> not be able to understand something). It is also clear that one or a few
> non-expert testers are not really going to be able to judge what is
> understandable to people with a wide range of cognitive and learning
> disabilities.
>
>
>
> All of the above is horribly depressing, but I still think that we have
> the prospect of getting a few SCs through. That will be a start in what I
> think is going to be a very long journey to really ensure that people with
> cognitive and learning disabilities are much more comfortable and effective
> when using the Web.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Lee [mailto:steve@opendirective.com
> <steve@opendirective.com>]
> *Sent:* 10 February 2017 10:22
> *To:* John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> <john.foliot@deque.com>
> *Cc:* lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; EA
> Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; Milliken, Neil
> <neil.milliken@atos.net> <neil.milliken@atos.net>; Thaddeus .
> <inclusivethinking@gmail.com> <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>;
> public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Jeanne Spellman
> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals
> for WCAG 2.1
>
>
>
> > only that the proposal as writ right now will have a hard time passing
> the wide review that FPWD brings, and if we cannot answer the types of
> questions I am asking now, in our more closed environment, then this SC
> will likely not make the final cut, sad as that is
>
> That makes me think what we are missing is a "guide to how to write SCs
> that are accepted".
>
> The regulars on the WCAG list have a lot of implicit knowledge and
> experience of the politics and practicabilities of the process that we
> don't all share. It seems like it could be a steep learning curve and
> combine with the current process is slowing us down from getting effective
> SCs out.
>
> Could a workshop or guide of some sort be arranged to help get us up to
> speed on these sort of issues?
>
> How about something at CSUN with remote access?
>
>
> Steve Lee
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 23:14, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> From my perspective, do not be confused by low levels of discussion on any
> single new SC - we are all struggling to keep up with the flurry of
> correspondence at this time.
>
>
>
> The latest PR for this new SC is simply the latest PR - it in no way means
> that the SC is "finalized" - only that it is now going to the larger WCAG
> WG for more review before it is "baked" into the 2.1 FPWD. (Note that the
> full Working Group is not copied on this email, only the COGA TF)
>
>
>
> I have a number of concerns with how this is emerging right now, including
> some centered around internationalization (for example, my early research
> shows that the use of the Passive Voice is not only common, but often
> "required" in the Japanese language, and insisting on a non-passive voice
> in that language may actually introduce *MORE* confusion for Japanese with
> learning disabilities. Surely we don't want that!)
>
>
>
> Additionally, I personally believe that statements such as "*It is
> expected that natural language processing algorithms will be able to
> conform to this automatically with reasonable accuracy.*" (Future tense)
> means that we do not have this ability today - but I am not sure, do such
> tools exist today? (Later, the draft suggests that IBM has "a tool" that
> can perform this today, but dependency on a single tool for testing is
> problematic, especially if it is a "for-profit" tool. Additionally, does
> that tool also support multiple languages? My colleague Birkir
> Gunnarsson is Icelandic - does the tool support his mother tongue as well?)
>
>
>
> NOTE - I am not for an instant suggesting that the spirit of this SC, or
> the Needs Statement that is driving it, are not valid, only that the
> proposal as writ right now will have a hard time passing the wide review
> that FPWD brings, and if we cannot answer the types of questions I am
> asking now, in our more closed environment, then this SC will likely not
> make the final cut, sad as that is.
>
>
>
> So let's get it rock-solid now, ya?
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, my bad. I forgot where I was in the process of managing these 2.
>
> The reason for my reticence was the very low level of discussion. These
> were my 1st as a SC manager and I really expect more push and shove. I
> guess that means they are good.
>
>
>
> Sorry again for the confusion due to being new to the process.
>
>
> Steve Lee
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 21:01, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> The pull request was done before Jeene made her suggestions so it is
> really too late. The issue is closed.
>
> My 2 cents - The Success criteria was pretty clear, measurable and
> testable  - more then a lot of what is in WCAG 2.0
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:46:03 +0200 *John
> Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi EA,
>
>
>
> Thanks. I don't see this as "causing trouble" - I see this as having an
> open, honest and candid discussion. We need to balance the needs of many
> disparate groups, including content authors who are not experts (and never
> will be). I've tried very hard to stay on top of the COGA requirements, and
> one of the larger take-away's I've learned is that individual
> personalization is and will be the Holy Grail for COGA issues.
>
>
>
> But we simply aren't there yet, not at anything that would scale, and I
> think we do ourselves a dis-service if we don't accept that truism today.
>
>
>
> Re: Innovation - I fully support that 100% - YES. We have a number of
> user-needs today, however the technology still isn't mature enough to start
> mandating that site-owners do "X, Y, Z", and frankly I think that if we
> ever got to the point where WCAG became that prescriptive we'd loose more
> ground then we've gained.
>
>
>
> This is one of the reasons why I suggested that for the release of 2.1,
> any User Requirement that was still unattainable at scale be none-the-less
> published as an official W3C Note, as we did with the MAUR (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/) - not everything in that
> list is achievable today, but the needs still exist, and what the
> 'expectations' are have been collected and published. To my happy
> discovery, there are now technologists out there taking these Requirements
> and then working on Proof Of Concept solutions. This has to be a positive
> thing!
>
>
>
> I sort of think of it like American Football - not every play is going to
> score a touch-down, but if we are successful in moving the ball closer to
> the goal line, we're still "winning". WCAG 2.0 had little-to-nothing to
> address the needs of the core constituency of the COGA and LV Task Forces
> when it was published in 2008, and we've done a good job collecting the
> User Requirements (Gap Analysis), but I also think we've got plenty more
> plays ahead of us before we score touch-downs there. But if, with 2.1, we
> move the ball forward closer towards the goal-posts, I think we're doing
> well - the goal now isn't "the touch-down" but rather "How many yards can
> we advance forward with this play?"
>
>
>
> For me, it keeps on coming down to "Don't let Perfect be the enemy of
> Good".
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:47 AM, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Thank you for all the trouble you have taken John,  and I certainly did
> not expect such an amazing reply this was just me researching it all a bit
> more.
>
> Apologies for causing trouble.  Lets just see if we can find a better way
> to test readability to suit all users.  Perhaps we can be a bit more
> innovative as Lisa suggested, but I appreciate we will have to make it
> robust and go through validation tests - thoughts of crowdsourcing help
> across different languages etc.
>
> Best wishes
> E.A.
>
> Mrs E.A. Draffan
> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103 <07976%20289103>
> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk<http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk/>
> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Foliot [john.foliot@deque.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2017 16:18
> To: EA Draffan
> Cc: Milliken, Neil; lisa.seeman; Thaddeus .; public-cognitive-a11y-tf;
> Jeanne Spellman
> Subject: Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for
> WCAG 2.1
>
> TL;DR:
>    WCAG Success Criteria need to be measurable, and while Reading Scores
> have their issues, they are at least measurable and repeatable, and will be
> significantly more palpable to the millions of content authors we will be
> asking to meet this Need.
>
> ***
>
> Hi EA,
>
> Thanks for those links. After reading through them (and yes, I read all
> 3), I am struck by one of the conclusion statements of the third reference (
> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15490
> /why-rf-fail.html?sequence=3)
>
> "The real factors that affect readability are elements such as the
> background knowledge of the reader relative to the knowledge presumed by
> the writer, the purpose of the reader relative to the purpose of the
> writer, and the purpose of the person who is presenting the text to the
> reader. These factors cannot be captured in a simple formula and ignoring
> them may do more harm than good."
>
> While we cannot discount this expert opinion
> ​, it also leaves me wondering how we can ever hope to "standardize" and
> quantify/measure something that is clearly not scientific​? Dissecting
> the statement above:
>
>   1.  background knowledge of the reader relative to the knowledge
> presumed by the writer - unknown and unknowable at scale (i.e. sites that
> get hundreds of thousands of unique visits a day)
>
>   2.  the purpose of the reader relative to the purpose of the writer -
> again, unknown and unknowable at scale
>
>   3.  the purpose of the person who is presenting the text to the reader -
> this is the only factor apparently under the control of the content author,
> and in scope for the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and thus the
> only thing a WCAG SC can address.
>
> ​
> My fear here is that there seems to be 2 opposing goals that we are trying
> to meet: one is a "testable" and measurable *standard* that can be taught
> and applied​ to millions of websites (the science piece), and yet
> "writing" and writing for specific audiences is an "art" (my distillation
> and take-away of those three articles).
>
> I get "art", and art is important, but art cannot be quantifiably
> measured, it cannot be "taught" (outside of principles - the science of
> painting with oils versus drawing with charcoals), but actual "art"
> certainly cannot be standardized or measured (unless you are shopping at
> Walmart, and purchase "Pastoral Scene #3 - 40" X 60"")
>
> What do I tell a Fortune 500 company they should do, if not try and meet
> some kind of standardized reading level? When you are authoring content for
> a million people, you cannot know all of your readers. I was more
> encouraged by one of the conclusions of the Leeds paper (
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/213296.pdf
> ​)​
>
>
> "In conclusion, we want to emphasize that formulas are not invalidated for
> the great majority of writing. On the other hand, what they cannot measure
> should make clear that they cannot make writing a science."
>
>
>
> So... what can we do?
>
> In controlled environments, you may be able to ensure more attention is
> applied to the "art" side of the problem statement, but for a company like
> Tesco, what would you tell Tesco's editorial staff (where there is more
> than one editorial person) to do? Tesco proudly claim to serve "...millions
> of customers a week in our stores and online." (
> https://www.tescoplc.com/about-us/our-businesses/), and so all they can
> "know" about their audience is generalized data (likely determined by
> user-logs on their website, coupled with possible surveys and focus-group
> testing).
>
> Large organizations like this also generally use Style Guides (AP, The
> Oxford Style Manual, The Chicago Manual of Style, etc. See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_style_guides) as well as often they
> will have internal "Voice of the company/Voice of the client" guides as
> well (when I worked at JPMC they had such an internal document).
>
> However, outside of specialized environments, getting any kind of buy-in
> from the millions of content creators out there will necessitate some form
> of measuring methodology, and while reading scores have their issues, they
> seem to be better than nothing at all, and so I am concerned that COGA
> experts are pushing back on this. I will posit that Jeanne's re-writes,
> while not 100% "perfect", brings the authoring solution a lot closer to
> what is required based upon the research provided.
>
> Add to that the increasingly litigious environment around web
> accessibility, and ask yourself how will a judge (who is neither an
> accessibility expert nor a language expert) going to judge whether a site
> "fails" or not? (For this reason alone we need standardized testing of some
> fashion or other, and if not readability scores, then what?)
>
> JF
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:31 AM, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:ea
> d@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
> I vote 3
>
> Holiday reading or references!
>
> Readability: The limitations of an approach through formulae (this paper
> has a definition of readability)
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/213296.pdf
>
> Another very readable discussion about readability and the limitations of
> scales,  but also measuring sentence length by number of words etc.
> http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/Limitations.pdf
>
> old one
>  https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15490
> /why-rf-fail.html?sequence=3
>
>
>
> Best wishes
> E.A.
>
> Mrs E.A. Draffan
> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103<tel:%2B44%20%280%297976%20289103
> <%2B44%20%280%297976%20289103>>
> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk<http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk/>
> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Milliken, Neil [neil.milliken@atos.net<mailto:neil.milliken@atos.net
> >]
> Sent: 06 February 2017 23:13
> To: lisa.seeman
> Cc: Thaddeus .; public-cognitive-a11y-tf; Jeanne Spellman
> Subject: Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for
> WCAG 2.1
>
> I vote 3
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Neil Milliken
> Head of Accessibility & Digital Inclusion
> Atos
> M: 07812325386 <07812%20325386><tel:07812325386 <07812%20325386>>
> E: Neil.Milliken@atos.net<mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net><mailto:
> Neil.Milliken@atos.net<mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net>>
> http://atos.net/iux
> http://atos.net/accessibilityservices
> @neilmilliken
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 22:35, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:l
> isa.seeman@zoho.com><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa
> .seeman@zoho.com>>> wrote:
>
> I am changing my vote to 3 as well.
> The SC as it  is incredibly easy to write testing tools for. there are a
> few open source  language processing tools that you can use to count cluses
> actureltys. Testing against a word list is also something that exists
> already in restricted language tools and is very easy to program. It cant
> be that we need to have a worse SC and use archaic reading level tools
> because WCAG are to set in their ways to accept any new technology.
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<
> https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon,
>
> ...
>
>
>