- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:52:20 -0500
- To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZuw-XGr24DcGkoQNsCiOWcvZbf34nheZp5DMyKgv+9OA@mail.gmail.com>
> but it's going to be really hard to try to do better, if people feel like every suggestion is an implicit criticism of what went before. I was part of the team that tried to solve the WCAG 1.0 problems and I would love for us to solve WCAG 2 problems with the next major iteration (Silver). No one wants to be a luddite. However, I feel an obligation to point out misconceptions about WCAG which can turn into straw men. We present a shortcoming of WCAG which is actually a misunderstanding of it. And then we go about solving that problem. Another possible contribution I can make is to share the reasons we made decisions and problems we had with specific directions. Hopefully, that may help the Silver team not go over an issue for 6 months and come to the same realization, or at least know which paths don't work, with view to find paths that do work. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613-806-9005 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:24 AM Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote: > David wrote: > > > Is there an example of this that someone can provide? I know the > > opposite can be true where a site can comply with WCAG and still > > > be super hard to use ... but it usually happens when some > > complicated legacy application gets an order to conform to WCAG, so > > a > layer of ARIA etc. is spread over it like lipstick on a pig. I > > wouldn't say that that is WCAG's fault. > > I don't think it is helpful to use words like "fault", or (per your > related tweet) "blame". Wanting Silver to do things differently > shouldn't be regarded as a criticism of WCAG. I don't think anyone > thinks WCAG is perfect, but it's going to be really hard to try to do > better, if people feel like every suggestion is an implicit criticism of > what went before. > > In terms of concrete examples: > > A set of tabpanels can be created to conform with WCAG (using the ARIA > APG design pattern), yet we know that many users struggle to use them in > practice. > > I worked on a project for a financial institution, where the user > requirement was to monitor multiple share prices side-by-side in > real-time. Often the dataset would contain many tens of shares, with > each share being updated every minute or so (and not always in synchrony > with other shares). It was possible to present the data in a way that > conformed to WCAG, but not in a way that was usable to screen reader > users or people with cognitive processing disabilities. > > For converse examples: > > I can use a page where the headings are styled, but not marked up using > the appropriate elements. I either use alternative screen reader > shortcuts for navigation, or do what we used to do before heading > navigation was a thing, and read the content like a text document. > > It is quite possible for a document to fail parsing and still be > entirely usable with an AT. > > It is possible for someone with low vision to find content > readable/usable, even when the text does not meet the minimum colour > contrast threshold. > > If we ask whether a thing is conformant, and ask whether it is usable, > the answers will not always be the same. > > Léonie. > On 10/11/2018 14:06, David MacDonald wrote: > > > I've asked some people with examples of WCAG reducing accessibility > > to speak for themselves. > > > > I would love to see an example of this. > > > > > During the Silver research phase, we heard complaints from innovative > > organizations about the challenges of making accessible web applications > > meet WCAG requirements -- sometimes because of the WCAG definitions of > > "web", sometimes because of the WCAG orientation toward web "pages" in a > > web "application" environment, and sometimes because the WCAG > > requirements apply to old technology (static web) and it is > > increasingly difficult to apply them to new technology (like dynamic > > mobile web). > > > > If we are going to make a major change to the way we create a standard, > > I think we'll need more than an anonymous general statement with no > > actual details as a basis for that huge change. If the WCAG team doesn't > > have access to the specifics of the research it's going to be hard to > > determine the road ahead. > > > > I think there should be a 2 tier research approach, where when the > > Silver TF comes across something interesting and jarring like this, it > > could be referred to WCAG team members knowledgeable about the standard > > who investigate further and can determine whether it was one of the > > following: > > > > 1) a genuine flaw in WCAG that requires us to throw out the current > > model and find a different model, > > 2) a misunderstanding of WCAG which requires us to either make the > > requirements clearer, or to provide Education and Outreach resourse to > > fill the gap. > > 3) a misunderstanding of WCAG which is a result of not reading the > > Understanding Documents. > > > > For example, there was shrill public criticism by a leading > > accessibility trainer that companies were failing WCAG text sizing > > requirements. I contacted him quietly and asked if he read the > > understanding document... He said "why?", I said "the answer is there". > > The issue went away. I'm astonished at how few leading accessibility > > people have read the "Understanding" documents. Perhaps there is a > > problem in the way we presented them, but we thought a link from each SC > > to its understanding would be sufficient for anyone who wanted to > > understand it. The Silver tabbed approach and short description/long > > description might be better. > > > > But I think we need access to the research, the situations described, > > otherwise its pretty hard to admit the research as the basis for the new > > model. > > > > Cheers, > > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > > > Tel: 613-806-9005 > > > > LinkedIn > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > > > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > > > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > > > / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > > > / Including those with disabilities/ > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy > > <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM Jeanne Spellman > > <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com > > <mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>> wrote: > > > > David, > > > > > Many of our audits include user testing with PWD and I depend on > > them. However, here are some of the fears I have in making user > > > testing with people with disabilities a requirement in WCAG.NEXT > > which might be referenced in law. > > > > I seriously doubt that we would make user testing a "requirement", > > because of all the reasons you said. We want to reward > > organizations that do more by giving them a higher score, not > > require them to do testing with people with disabilities. > > > > The question we are discussing is: when an automated or manual test > > from an auditor says that something fails, and testing with people > > with disabilities say that it is accessible, would the result from > > testing with people with disabilities be sufficient to say that it > > passes? And vice versa, if the traditional WCAG tests say that it > > passes, but people with disabilities say that it is inaccessible, > > can it claim Silver conformance? > > > > > Is there an example of this that someone can provide? I know the > > opposite can be true where a site can comply with WCAG and still > > > be super hard to use ... but it usually happens when some > > complicated legacy application gets an order to conform to WCAG, so > > a > layer of ARIA etc. is spread over it like lipstick on a pig. I > > wouldn't say that that is WCAG's fault. > > > > I've asked some people with examples of WCAG reducing accessibility > > to speak for themselves. I did not feel comfortable talking about > > them specifically in a public forum. I will say that they were NOT > > legacy systems with a sprinkling of ARIA. These were new, > > sophisticated web applications from top-notch accessibility teams > > that did a lot of user testing on accessibility features. At least > > one of them had to pull a feature that benefited people with > > disabilities because the organization could not make it > > backward-compatible to WCAG. During the Silver research phase, we > > heard complaints from innovative organizations about the challenges > > of making accessible web applications meet WCAG requirements -- > > sometimes because of the WCAG definitions of "web", sometimes > > because of the WCAG orientation toward web "pages" in a web > > "application" environment, and sometimes because the WCAG > > requirements apply to old technology (static web) and it is > > increasingly difficult to apply them to new technology (like dynamic > > mobile web). > > > > None of these examples are "WCAG's fault". I am certainly not > > trying to fault WCAG (if it comes across that way, I apologize). I > > think we have a responsibility with Silver to make sure we are doing > > our best to learn from WCAG 2.x and make Silver a giant leap forward > > -- the same way that WCAG 2 was a giant leap forward from WCAG 1.0. > > > > > > > > On 11/9/2018 2:05 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > >> > We heard the complaint from several large innovative companies > >> that they had to remove features that improved accessibility from > >> their applications because they didn't pass WCAG. > >> > >> Is there an example of this that someone can provide? I know the > >> opposite can be true where a site can comply with WCAG and still > >> be super hard to use ... but it usually happens when some > >> complicated legacyapplication gets an order to conform to WCAG, so > >> a layer of ARIA etc. is spread over it like lipstick on a pig.I > >> wouldn't say that that is WCAG's fault. > >> > >> Many of our audits include user testing with PWD and I depend on > >> them. However, here are some of the fears I have in making user > >> testing with people with disabilities a requirement in WCAG.NEXT > >> which might be referenced in law. > >> > >> 1) What is a user with a disability? The United Nations’ > >> Convention CRPD recognizes that “disability is an evolving concept > >> ... ” It is quite broad and many companies could claim their users > >> have a disability. Is someone going to be able to say "no those > >> users aren't qualified as people with disabilities". Are we going > >> to define what distinguishes a user with a disability from one who > >> doesn't have a disability? > >> 2) How does a 3rd party verify user testing with disabilities was > >> done? > >> 3) How is the quality measured? Some user testing is amazing and > >> makes all the difference, but legislated user testing sounds like > >> it may not result in very good quality. > >> 4) What happens with diverse responses from users? I've had one > >> expert screen reader user say they loved a particular function and > >> the other thought is was very difficult to use. > >> 5) A site has to be pretty mature to have user testing, > >> particularly if the user needs assistive technology, which means > >> its at the end of the development process, when the "cement is > hard". > >> 6) When is it enough user testing. How many pages? How much time? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> David MacDonald > >> > >> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > >> > >> Tel: 613-806-9005 > >> > >> LinkedIn > >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > >> > >> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > >> > >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > >> > >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > >> > >> / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > >> > >> /Including those with disabilities/ > >> > >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > >> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:52 PM Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk > >> <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote: > >> > >> On 09/11/2018 17:35, Jennison Asuncion wrote: > >> > "We heard the complaint from several large innovative > >> companies that they had to remove features that improved > >> accessibility from their applications because they didn't pass > >> WCAG. That's a problem." > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > > >> > I've often heard the phrase something like: "it complies, > >> but is it usable?" > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > > >> > I think a key to Silver is that there is a level of > >> flexibility built-in to avoid both of these situations. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> We've all seen things built to conform to WCAG, but which are > >> effectively unusable in the wild. > >> > >> We all advocate for users to be included throughout the > >> production > >> lifecycle, and for the usability of a thing to be considered a > >> defining > >> metric for success. > >> > >> We know that trying to document the requirements for each user > >> group > >> (and every variation within each group), simply isn't possible > >> - at > >> least, not to the extent that it can be distilled into a > >> usable set of > >> criteria/guidelines. > >> > >> Ultimately, we know that someone's ability to use a thing is > >> the real > >> acid test. > >> > >> So making usability a success metric for Silver not only seems > >> like the > >> logical thing to do, it also feels like the responsible thing > >> to do. > >> > >> Léonie. > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Just my $0.02. > >> > Jennison > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________________ > >> > From: Jeanne Spellman [jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com > >> <mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>] > >> > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 8:58 AM > >> > To: public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org> > >> > Subject: Re: Measurability in Silver > >> > > >> > Charles raises a very important issue: Can the qualitative > >> result be accepted as a measurable “pass”?. I am interested > >> in what you think about it. The example is link with no > >> underline that fails 1.4.1 Color Alone (a common design > >> pattern). Should Silver accept the results of a test with > >> users that found that a large percentage were able to identify > >> that it was a link, even though it was only defined by the > >> difference in color? Should that be a pass? > >> > > >> > Should tests with users be able to change the pass/fail of > >> the guidance? I think that's an important question that I > >> don't know the answer to yet. It gives an opportunity to for > >> companies with innovative responses to accessibility to prove > >> that their approach is more accessible, even if it is a > >> technical WCAG failure. We heard the complaint from several > >> large innovative companies that they had to remove features > >> that improved accessibility from their applications because > >> they didn't pass WCAG. That's a problem. Testing with users > >> with disabilities is a potential solution. I saw a > >> presentation at A11yBOS where the presenter showed some visual > >> designs that passed WCAG that were inaccessible. Testing with > >> users with disabilities could encourage companies to move away > >> from technical conformance to WCAG that is still inaccessible > >> and focus on what works for users. > >> > > >> > On the other hand, testing with users with disabilities can > >> be small datasets. They can be skewed toward one disability > >> or levels of expertise. Potentially, it might be easier to > >> game the system by who was being selected to participate in > >> the study. I have seen testing with people with disabilities > >> that provided very valuable accessibility information that > >> goes well beyond WCAG requirements. But do I want that to > >> override other conformance measures? I'm interested in some > >> new ideas that could help safeguard people from abusing the > >> system. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 11/7/2018 9:45 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > >> > I think most WCAG evaluators would not include transient > >> states that last a split second on inline links unless there > >> was some added value. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) > >> <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com > >> <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com><mailto: > Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com > >> <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>>> wrote: > >> > Following up on today’s conversation. > >> > > >> > RE: Testing as Pass/Fail versus Measurability > >> > > >> > All (or at least most) of the feedback, comments, and > >> opposition to a “measurable” approach seem to suggest or imply > >> that measurable means a scale – for example, a score of 1–5. > >> > > >> > Some thoughts based on a specific example: > >> > > >> > Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A) > >> > Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying > >> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or > >> distinguishing a visual element. > >> > > >> > Technique > >> > Situation A: If the color of particular words, backgrounds, > >> or other content is used to indicate information: > >> > G205: Including a text cue for colored form control labels > >> > Test > >> > For any content where color differences are used to convey > >> information: > >> > Check that the same information is available through text or > >> character cues. > >> > > >> > Interpretation > >> > “…text or character cues” here is intended to describe the > >> “visual means” as defined in the SC. So there is a simple pass > >> / fail test that “the same information” [as color] is visible. > >> > > >> > Hypothetical scenario > >> > Element is a link. The information and indication of action > >> is “this text is a link”. It is blue text within a line of > >> black text that is not a link. It is not underlined. Links are > >> stateful. There is only 1 of 5 states where there is no second > >> explicit visual means. In the default state, there is color > >> alone. In the focus, active, hover and visited states there > >> are additional visual affordances as well as the user agent > >> providing a pointer cursor where there is a pointing input > >> device. There is even a selected state, and a pseudo after > >> element that includes content of an icon that conveys the link > >> is external. > >> > > >> > So, “same information is available through text or character > >> cues” is true in 4 states, but not true in 1. Does this fail? > >> Under WCAG 1.4.1, it does. Under Silver, there may be other > >> options. As a scale (as suggested at the beginning), this > >> could earn a 4 of 5. However, that then requires an enumerated > >> mark such as ‘3 or higher’ to qualify as passing. There is > >> another option. What if the test question was “do people > >> understand from any visual cues that this text is a link?” > >> Then that question was answered by test participants that > >> included 60 people with a wide spectrum of visual abilities > >> and color deficiencies. If the result was 49 of 60 said “yes”, > >> and 8 of 60 said “yes, if” or “yes, when” and 3 said “no”, > >> there is clearly a new grey area or middle ground beyond > >> simply scoring on a scale. The qualitative result is that it > >> passed, while the quantitative result is that it scored high > >> enough to pass if the enumerated mark or threshold was 51%. > >> Can the qualitative result be accepted as a measurable “pass”? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > > >> > Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect > >> > > >> > charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com > >> <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com><mailto: > charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com > >> <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com > >?subject=Note%20From%20Signature> > >> > w 248.203.8723 > >> > m 248.225.8179 > >> > 360 W Maple > >> Ave,< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> Birmingham MI > >> 48009< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > mrm-mccann.com > >> <http://mrm-mccann.com>< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrm-mccann.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=cYXcjAGCoIcVX3GLCoUL%2FF8NfBo5%2BJJjLM1mkHzApi8%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > [MRM//McCann] > >> > Relationship Is Our Middle Name > >> > > >> > Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year, 2018 > >> > Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017 > >> > Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017 > >> > North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016 > >> > Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2017, 2018 > >> > > >> > > >> > This message contains information which may be confidential > >> and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or > >> authorized to receive this message for the intended > >> recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to > >> anyone the message or any information contained in the > >> message. If you have received the message in error, please > >> advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. > >> Thank you very much. > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > David MacDonald > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. > >> > > >> > Tel: 613-806-9005 > >> > > >> > LinkedIn > >> > > >> < > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=n0ZxmQSCRIckSgkkt3Z%2BODhw%2FO4IkDRgBxO9eFfFi7c%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > twitter.com/davidmacd > >> <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110167868&sdata=hZKCiAwYzCb0IyZM%2B9HTw1PGGDi%2Bwbdcr0SeeIvQ4Ns%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > > >> GitHub< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=YGhUacLpKa1QeH2Sa5NXYs7wvA2t1%2FNe3WxCmTAMVwo%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > www.Can-Adapt.com > >> <http://www.Can-Adapt.com>< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=tfPcq86ClXuVZxzz0ke%2BBeIcptobpNZL5QXKbD318FA%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Adapting the web to all users > >> > > >> > Including those with disabilities > >> > > >> > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our > >> privacy > >> policy< > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110187884&sdata=b4UPWdivbnEEuDkkLOeJJcxmmRHLwfMwHoXze9poOqA%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem > >> > > > > -- > @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem > >
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2018 18:52:56 UTC