W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:00:36 -0400
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Stephen Repsher <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, To Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D712867C-FB86-47A9-82AC-F665950C1F77@umd.edu>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Hi Laura,

Tough question-  tough decision. 

If you don’t include the phrase then the SC fails general applicability.  
It must be scoped or it fails.

I agree that scoping it is not desirable, since it gives a pass to anyone that uses a technology that doesn’t support it.
but the alternative is the you PROHIBIT the use of any technology that does not support it.  If that is our desire - then we can include it without scoping - but it will limit the number of places that will adopt 2.1.     If 2.1 cannot be met except with HTML and PDF  as per your question — it is unlikely that it will be adopted like WCAG 2.0 was. 




Standing back a bit though.  and remembering how we got here, helps to frame our situation and decisions. 

In creating 2.1 we sort of have two goals.
To create a version 2.1 that would be adopted the same way WCAG 2.0 is.
To add SC that would push accessibility further.

If we are not careful with how we do number 2, we will not achieve number 1. 

If, for example, we create version 2.1 in a way that it cannot be applied as broadly as 2.0, than we run the risk that it will not be adopted as widely as 2.0.

If we create 2.1 so that it is not testable (that is, so that authors have no way to test and be sure that they have passed)  in order to include more guidance, then we may run the risk that 2.1 will not be required in the same places the 2.0 was required —  because you can’t require or enforce conformance if authors and testers can’t tell when an SC has been passed.

 If we create 2.1 so that it has some provisions which are just too difficult, or required skills that authors in general will not have, then 2.12 it is not likely to be required as broadly as 2.0.

In short, if we compromise on the rigor we apply to SC in order to get more into 2.1 -  we may compromise the adoption of 2.1.   Unfortunately,  compromising on a few will jeopardize them all since 2.1 will be a set. 

This does NOT apply to level AAA,  but it would go levels A and AA.  

So we need to decide.  We can’t have out cake and eat it too. 
  (actually we will have to decide this over and over again on each SC if we question the criteria or whether we should compromise any of them for any of the SC.) 


Again I wish us luck.     
And welcome to the pain that we went through with W2.   We spent years agonizing over this. 


The gold will come from places where there ARE things that can meet the criteria for being criteria — and that were missed in 2.0.     I’m afraid it will be fewer than we like but lets see what we can find/create.   

PLUS of course, there is additional gold in all the things that can’t be SC, but are great advice and can go into our best practices document. 


g







Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 23, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew, Josh, and all,
> 
> SUMMARY:
> 
> A key point of contention that likely needs to be settle before
> consensus can be reached on Issue 78 (Adapting Text) SC is:
> 
> Must the phrase "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that
> SC has support in 2 major technologies, namely HTML and PDF?
> 
> If we can come to agreement on this point, it may help move the
> discussion forward.
> 
> DETAILS:
> 
> We included the "technologies being used" (1.4.5 language) in Proposal
> H [1] to address scoping. Andrew's proposal [2] from last Thursday
> also uses it.
> 
> Some people favor using that language. But some do not.
> 
> People in the Low Vision Task Force (LVTF) have concerns and would
> like it removed. For example, the following are excerpts from the
> April 20, 2017 LVTF minutes [3]:
> 
> * Shawn H: "+1 for not supporting giving a pass for technologies that
> don't support it !"
> * Stephen R: "Claim is if technology can support user styles then the
> SC is a pass, and I have concerns with that"
> * Stephen R: "Notes distinction between user agent support vs.
> technology support, sees that as the issue"
> * Stephen R: "Big difference is we're giving a blanket pass with no
> stipulations behind it"
> * Jim A: "We want the one that talks about accessibility supported,
> and leaves out the technology stuff"
> * Glenda S: "My vote: Go with "L" version. Dropping font for now (to
> get this SC in)."
> 
> In addition, on the April 15 survey Jason said [4], "...the term
> 'technologies being used' in Proposal H is problematic. 'Technologies'
> in WCAG generally refer to implementation technologies (HTML, CSS,
> JavaScript, etc.), not to optional capabilities of user agents,
> whereas I think the intention here is to refer to the latter."
> 
> However, on April 14 regarding leaving out that verbiage and going
> with Proposal L [5], Gregg wrote [6], "the language, 'Except for
> images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden
> as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality' assumes
> that all technologies allow this - and therefore outlaws all
> technologies that do not. So, anything that doesn't have style sheets
> or similar mechanism will not be able to conform to 2.1?"
> 
> To which I replied, "As Bruce pointed out, it goes to accessibility support."
> 
> Gregg went on to say, "That is not the meaning of accessibility
> support. If the author cannot do it because there is no way to do it
> with the technology they are using — then it means that the author
> cannot use that technology and conform to WCAG 2.1. So that means 2.1
> is in effect barring use of a technology. We tried to not create SC
> that could not be met with all major technologies used in Web pages
> today."
> 
> Alastair later asked [7], "Can we define those for 2017? HTML etc.,
> yes. PDF, yes. What else would you call a 'major web technology'
> today?"
> 
> So, as I said at the beginning of this email, my question is:
> 
> Must the phrase "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that
> SC has support in 2 technologies, namely HTML and PDF?
> 
> If we can come to agreement on that point, it may help move the
> discussion forward.
> 
> Thank you all very much.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_text_reads:
> [2]  https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/AWK_adapting-text/guidelines/#adapting-text
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/20-lvtf-minutes.html
> [4] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/AdaptingTextSurvey/results
> [5] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_text_reads:
> [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0196.html
> [7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0270.html
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 23 April 2017 16:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC