RE: [EXTERNAL] Whether or not to include Level AAA criteria in WCAG2ICT

In consideration of the comments by those before me, I suggest we agree to disagree and move forward with NOT EXCLUDING (but also not including) AAA and looking to a phase two to address AAA if and when we can get to it.

As proposed in the pull request<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2682/files>, I believe that this is a good compromise to both not including AAA and considering AAA as and if time allows.

I believe that eliminating AAA altogether from the scope could jeopardize this being agreed to by the larger AG and I also question the value of debating this further, given that both feel strongly about a) including it or b) excluding it.

Can we agree to disagree and punt this to the actual work of the group itself, if time allows?

Laura





Laura Boniello Miller
Vispero<http://www.vispero.com/>™ | JAWS Kiosk
Mobile: 717-989-8657

lmiller@vispero.com
Schedule a meeting<https://meetings.hubspot.com/lmiller18>
Find me on Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauraboniello/> | Clubhouse @Lboniello | Twitter<https://twitter.com/LauraBoniello>
Pronouns: She/Her

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:49 PM
To: Fernanda Bonnin <ferbonn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Whether or not to include Level AAA criteria in WCAG2ICT

CAUTION: This email originated outside Vispero. Do not click links, open attachments or forward unless you recognize the sender.

On Oct 4, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Fernanda Bonnin <ferbonn@microsoft.com<mailto:ferbonn@microsoft.com>> wrote:

Beyond the original WCAG2ICT TF not getting to AAA due to time, the survey on the approach for AAA from the previous WCAG2ICT TF<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130406/results> also outlines various arguments for not including AAA.

Yep

But most of those were based on David MacDonald's post which ended
in the light of the above, very few current Task Force members would be willing to commit the effort needed to achieve the task of including level AAA SCs.

Since we already have a draft of the AAA provisions — I would ask David again if he still felt that it was not worth it.



I am OK either way — but we keep saying we want to include more cognitive, language, and learning disabilities   — then we walk away from including AAA because it might be more work.      But after my review it appears it might not be much work at all.

Perhaps we should put out a survey of the provisions with the proposed language.
We could do two of them
- one for A and AA
- one for AAA

And see if we are in agreement most or all  — and then just focus on the few that we have differences on.

The question of course is not on whether an SC should be or not - or should be worded such-and-such or not
But simply whether it makes sense "if applied to interface aspects of  the ICT we scope WCAG2ICT to cover"   (with  "web page" or "web" replaced by  "non-web content or software"  (where were restrict these to the "human interface aspects of the ICT". )


I think those arguments are still valid, and including AAA could be taken as a signal that the criteria ought to be applied.


And I DO think they should be applied (considered) — but not required — just as in WCAG they should be considered but not required.

Do you not think they should even be considered?
Or are you worried the just mentioning them might elevate them even though they are already in WCAG.

I would argue that NOT including them - seems to say that we do not think they should ever be considered for ICT.
(And saying that we didnt include them because no one pays attention to level AAA anyway - I think is giving up the fight — and being guilty of it ourselves.

In the origianal WCAG2ICT we had no time and we had a timeline / deadline to hit .    Also as the first time through — and having ALL of the SC to cover - it was a real slog.

This time we have

  *   The map for doing it from the first one
  *   Most all of the items are already done
  *   We only have a few to do
  *   And we have the level AAA already in draft form ready for review

I would suggest we try and see if the AAA are not an undue burden to review.
And we do not ignore them too - without a good reason other than fear of workload or fear that including them here would be worse than including them in WCAG.

Just my thoughts.

Gregg



On Oct 4, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Fernanda Bonnin <ferbonn@microsoft.com<mailto:ferbonn@microsoft.com>> wrote:

Beyond the original WCAG2ICT TF not getting to AAA due to time, the survey on the approach for AAA from the previous WCAG2ICT TF<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130406/results> also outlines various arguments for not including AAA.

I think those arguments are still valid, and including AAA could be taken as a signal that the criteria ought to be applied.

Best,
Fernanda
From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 9:19 PM
To: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com<mailto:maryjom@us.ibm.com>>
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Whether or not to include Level AAA criteria in WCAG2ICT


I also wondered about whether including AAA items in WCAG2ICT would lead to their adoption in regulation.

My conclusion was that — it didnt in WCAG  — so I don’t think it will here either.

It MIGHT lead to their inclusion in an appendix of EN 301 549  (as was suggested already for WCAG AAA)

But the warning against I think is good enough.

And we HAVE been trying to get them more air time  - more visibility.

So I think we should include them.

Last weekend I went through and examined each one — and they all seem to apply (except perhaps "sets of software" one) (which also was problematic at other levels).
So I think the workload would be minimal
I even posted a version of each in our template form so we can (relatively) quickly review and add if desired.

So after looking at them I think we should — and include the warning.


Gregg





On Oct 3, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com<mailto:maryjom@us.ibm.com>> wrote:


  1.  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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F2682%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cferbonn%40microsoft.com%7C21d7193f770d4591e5d108daa5bf8b87%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638004539355010724%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4xNgaegyr9v%2FFpBr12xk%2F7t4IDMkXb83BZ1cz62rpq4%3D&reserved=0>. 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.