Re: [WCAG2ICT] Topic: Work Statement section on Scope of Work

I think it might be better to separate these into 3 different discussion streams to help keep the threads from knotting.

I will follow this with three emails each breaking these into a different discussion thread. 
(If for no other reason than to put keep me from going cross-eyed)

Should we be using surveys?

G

Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Oct 3, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> Here’s some work regarding the Scope of Work section of the WCAG2ICT work statement. This is so everyone has a little of the history of the topic, the discussions, and hopefully get the survey comments nearer to resolution before the Thursday 6 October meeting. 
>  
> There are three themes of comments as listed below. Please read each with its corresponding discussion and suggestions
>  
> (Shadi) Whether we might publish WCAG2ICT as a W3C Statement instead of a WG Note? If so, might be useful to list this as either in scope or out of scope, to avoid this question coming up again in the future.
>  
> Mary Jo: IMO, this is a possibility. Need to have that conversation with the TF leadership to determine what would it require to be published as a W3C statement. Personally, I’m unfamiliar with that type of document and what it would entail to become a W3C statement. If it requires a lot more time and effort, doing so might be delayed to get a Note published in time for use in regulatory work. We could add to the work statement that there is the potential for this to eventually become a W3C statement.
>  
> Do others have thoughts or concerns with this being published as a W3C Statement?  Here’s a link to a description of a W3C Statement <https://www.w3.org/standards/types#STMT> vs. Working Group Note <https://www.w3.org/standards/types#NOTE>. Please weigh in.
>  
> If there are no concerns, we could add to the in-scope a bullet that says:
> Seeking W3C endorsement to publish the WCAG2ICT document as a W3C Statement (a form of W3C Technical Report)
>  
> Whether or not to include Level AAA criteria in WCAG2ICT
> The original WCAG2ICT work statement had AAA, but the task force didn’t get to it. Once the Note published, there was other pressing work and so the group didn’t return to analyze AAA since regulations didn’t require it.  
>  
> In the initial review of the work statement by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG), there was some feedback that there would need to be a good reason not to incorporate Level AAA.
>  
> Within our group, there seems to be general concern that if we included AAA in WCAG2ICT, that might encourage regulations to start requiring those criteria. Would like to know if there are objections to including in the scope as it was before, potentially not covering it in Phase 1 as noted in the edits in the timeline section in PR 2682 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files>. The WCAG2ICT document itself could include WCAG’s conformance note:
> It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.
>  
> Would this be sufficient? Please weigh in and offer alternatives, if needed.
>  
> Definition of non-web ICT covered by the WCAG2ICT Note. Previous discussion on possibly changing “non-web ICT” to “non-web documents and software” (contributed by Bruce) or “non-web documents and application software” (contributed by Sam).  The discussion on 22 September seemed to go in the direction of NOT changing the term (and thus the long-used title of the WCAG2ICT document) into the direction of either using the existing definition in the Note, or some variation of that, in the work statement’s scope.  The text from the WCAG2ICT Note has two related bullets that read:
> Because this document deals with applying WCAG, which is a standard for web content accessibility, to ICT it does not deal with such things as closed products and requirements for non-user interface aspects of platforms, nor individual components. As such, this document is not sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility in non-web documents and software.
> This document does not comment on hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.
>  
> It is my understanding that many of the difficulties lie in the fact that low-level software (e.g. BIOS) that is run before AT can be initiated and other software that provides a basic UI on hardware (e.g. on closed products where AT cannot be installed). The original WCAG2ICT did make simple statements about some problematic success criteria for products with closed functionality.
>  
> Did I characterize this correctly?  If someone can describe this better, please comment.
>  
> Can we add a statement to the out-of-scope bullets such as:
>  
> Applying WCAG to hardware aspects of products, non-user interface aspects of platforms, or user-interface components as individual items, because the basic constructs on which WCAG 2.0 is built do not apply to these.
>  
> Would this be sufficient? Please weigh in and offer alternatives, if needed.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Mary Jo
> _______________________________________
> Mary Jo Mueller
> IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager
>  
> "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."  ~John Quincy Adams
> --