Re: Summary of sub-group meeting recommendation for WCAG 2.2 SC to propose for COGA

Hi Alistair



> it is because I don’t think anyone wants to rehash those discussions. Something would need to have changed since last year, for  example: There is a new (and available) technology to test something, or new browser-side technology support.



I am wondering if this is a good enough reason to be excluding user accessibility requirements from WCAG. 

Perhaps WCAG would be interested in a different process. 

1. identify the most important user needed and barriers to accessibility (WCAG with coga )

2. identify and brainstorm how they could be included in WCAG (WCAG team)



We tried to do it with the task force and some volunteers from IBM (see some rewording efforts from   https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html to https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rewroded%20sc%203.html to the github issues)

With the people in WCAG activly involved in the process maybe it would be more successful.



Maybe the new thing that is needed is a diffrent process in WCAG?  Is that something WCAG would want to try?








All the best



Lisa Seeman



http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/, https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa








---- On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:38:17 +0200 Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ----




Hi Lisa,

 

I’m probably best placed to answer this:

> Why are the other success criteria from coga  not even included in the survey?  Do you know how that disision was made?

 

The survey is simply gathering together possible SC from the task forces. It is to take the temperature and see if there is sufficient benefit  from working on a 2.2. It is not a final list of potential SCs, and if we go ahead that list will likely be updated and then whittled down quite a lot.

If the question was “Why haven’t all the previous SCs from 2.1 been included?”, it is because I don’t think anyone wants to rehash those discussions. Something would need to have changed since last year, for  example: There is a new (and available) technology to test something, or new browser-side technology support.

As Glenda said, that is the case for one of the SCs so that one has been added. The (very-draft) SCs from the other TFs are different from the 2.1 proposals.

In addition, several of us (me, Glenda, David) have been through the previous SCs looking for options, but it was difficult, for example:

Undo/return could be reformed into a ‘previous steps’ SC, David suggested: “Previous steps: When a https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#webpagedef is one of a series of Web pages presenting a https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#processdef (i.e., a sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity), user can move to and from any of the completed steps without a loss of data.”

However, there are scenarios where this could not logically apply, so it would probably have to adapt or go at AAA level.


Update to Name/role/value (which I think Lisa & Richard Schwerdtfeger worked on), however, we haven’t been able to get consensus on changing previous SCs, so this is unlikely. Adding a modifier SC is also likely to confuse things more.


I’ve also been through the design guidelines, and whilst they work as positive examples for people to use, I couldn’t find anything that could be applied universally without exceptions. That is why Glenda and  I made the proposal below.

If the group would like to work on more possible 2.2 criteria (and I’d strongly suggest prioritising 2-4) that would be welcome and it isn’t too late.

From the prioritisation on the planning page [1] WCAG 2.2 was a secondary thing for the group, so I didn’t want to push this work.

Cheers,

-Alastair

1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage



---- On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:03:26 +0200mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com wrote ----
Dear COGA TF,

 


Alastair and I met to review COGA opportunities for WCAG 2.2.  Here is a summary of our recommendation (based on our review of the gap analysis, design guide and proposed SC  that did not make it into WCAG 2.1: 


·         propose 1 new COGA Success Criteria (Accessible Authentication)

o    We believe that recent advancements in the Web Authentication standard will make it possible for this proposed SC to get consensus approval for WCAG 2.2. 

o    Glenda will schedule a meeting with John Rochford, Janina (and anyone else who is interested) after the COGA Face-to-Face meeting so we can discuss next steps in  more detail.

·         provide feedback/support for LVTF proposed SC that will also benefit COGA

o    Example:  Proximity of Related Information:  Users know about and can find related information

·         continue to watch for break-throughs in technology to improve COG-A11Y

o    Technology breakthroughs could lead to better cognitive accessibility. As a group we will continue to be on the look out for new solutions for some of the proposed  WCAG 2.1 SC that didn't make it in. For example, recent advancements in the Web Authentication standard give us hope that the proposed SC for Accessible Authentication will make it this time. 

·         continue to develop/refine the Design Guide (based on the Gap Analysis).

o    in the process of working on the Design Guide and the Gap Analysis, if we discover new requirements that appear to be a good fit for the WCAG 2.x model, we will propose  them to AG.  


And, we encourage you to answer the WCAG 2.2 Survey (about potential SC) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-possibles/ 

 



I'll be happy to discuss this in our Thursday COGA meeting. 


Let us know if you have any questions.
 Best,
Glenda & Alastair


 


mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com, http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification   | team a11y lead | 512.963.3773 


  


        http://www.deque.com  accessibility for good