RE: Important new W3C doc with info of interest to the COGA TF

To be fair to the document, it is aimed at explaining why certain websites will find WCAG conformance difficult. It is not aiming to explain why criteria do or don’t get in.

There was a consensus process, and people / organisations can object based on certain requirements. It is not true to say a SC was rejected because one organisation raised “self programming routers". I vaguely remember something about web-interfaces for routers, but it would have been an example of where something wouldn’t work, I’d need to dig for more on that particular example.

More interesting from John’s quoted section: I don’t think the ‘opportunity’ (plain language guidelines) follows from the ‘problem’ (making cognitive requirements into testable criteria).

I’d certainly agree that simpler language guidelines would make them more widely understood, but it does not help make a guideline more (or less) testable.  That involves dealing with context, such as when something should apply based on type of organisation, or other factors outside of the actual web-content. That isn’t a language issue, but a testing methodology issue.

That section was copied over from the Silver research. It is useful context for the document, but it is still an a work-in-progress area as far as solutions go.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Sent: 18 May 2020 10:03
To: James A. <A.James@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Important new W3C doc with info of interest to the COGA TF

The only problem it only represents why some of them were rejected. We got many of them beyond the testability level of other WCAG SC

Other big problems were wide applicability, author burden, lack of supporting tools etc.

My favorite example of "wide applicability " was when an SC was rejected by MS because it was not appropriate to implement for self programming routers. (which is arguably out of scope for WCAG anyway).

There was a conformance process, which meant that anyone can object for any reason. If three people were objecting it could not get though consensus.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Sun, 17 May 2020 15:59:30 +0300 James A. <A.James@soton.ac.uk<mailto:A.James@soton.ac.uk>> wrote ----

Hi John

Thank you for highlighting this document. I think it will be extremely useful for explaining to organisations why there are some gaps within WCAG and also why it is possible to make recommendations that are not part of the guidelines if they are suitable for the context of the content and audience.

Thanks again

Abi
COGA, University of Southampton

From: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu<mailto:john.rochford@umassmed.edu>>
Sent: 17 May 2020 08:55
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Important new W3C doc with info of interest to the COGA TF

Hi All,

I just reviewed a new W3C doc, "Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing, and Approaches for Mitigating Them<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Faccessibility-conformance-challenges%2F&data=01%7C01%7Ca.james%40soton.ac.uk%7C4d97ead8d009430b254108d7fa37bd6b%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0&sdata=L1oDspp44vlIdph3JM5bw69MhMgvbkefSRku7AOROaA%3D&reserved=0>." It is a tour de force.

Take note of section 5.2.3 Constraints on What is Strictly Testable, quoted below for your convenience.

"Specific problem: Certain success criteria are quite clear and measurable, like color contrast. Others, far less so. The entire principle of understandable is critical for people with cognitive disabilities, yet success criteria intended to support the principle are not easy to test for or clear on how to measure. As a simple example, there is no clear, recent or consistent definition – within any locale or language – on what lower secondary education level means in regard to web content. Language and text content is also not the only challenge among those with cognitive and learning disabilities. Compounding this, most of the existing criteria in support of understanding are designated as AAA, which relatively few organizations attempt to conform with.

Result of problem: The requirement for valid and reliable testability for WCAG success criteria presents a structural barrier to including the needs of people with disabilities whose needs are not strictly testable. Guidance that WCAG working group members would like to include cannot be included. The needs of people with disabilities – especially intellectual and cognitive disabilities – are not being met.

Situation and Priority: Of the 70 new success criteria proposed by the Cognitive Accessibility Task Force to support the needs of people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, only four to six (depending on interpretation) were added to WCAG 2.1 and only one is in level AA. The remainder are in level AAA, which is rarely implemented. This means user needs are not met.

Opportunity: Multiple research projects and audience feedback have concluded that simpler language is desired and needed for audiences of the guidelines. Clear but flexible criteria with considerations for a wider spectrum of disabilities helps ensure more needs are met."

Also take note of all the people who made this stupendous document. They richly deserve our gratitude.


Editors:
Janina Sajka (Amazon)
Michael Cooper (W3C)

Authors:
Janina Sajka (Amazon)
Peter Korn (Amazon)
Charles Hall

Contributors:
Alastair Campbell (Nomensa)
Laura Carlson (Invited Expert)
Michael Cooper (W3C)
Joe Cronin (Amazon)
Detlev Fischer (Invited Expert)
Charles Hall (Invited Expert)
Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
Peter Korn (Amazon)
Shawn Lauriat (Google)
David MacDonald (Invited Expert)
Mary Jo Mueller (IBM)
Janina Sajka (Amazon)
Jeanne Spellman (TetraLogical)
Jason White (ETS)


John