- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:41:35 -0400
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- CC: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>, alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP100E764B3E3D7FDF325A633FEFE0@phx.gbl>
This all rings true to my memory. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> 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 Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > Agree. > > Extensions don’t change standards, or add to the standards. For example > SVG is an extension of HTML but doesn’t change the HTML standard nor what > it takes to conform to the HTML standard. > > Also, agree that WCAG was meant to be flexible enough to apply to > different platforms, devices, etc. In fact the WCAG2ICT task force looked > at what it took to apply WCAG to e-documents (not on the web) and software > in general. Their conclusion after a year of work was that it did apply > with basically just changing the words Web to documents and software. > (they did find that a couple provisions that talked about “sets of” didn’t > occur much (rarely) in docs and especially software. But when they did > occur - they would still apply as written. > It is important to note that the group also concluded that WCAG didn’t > apply directly to “closed platforms” because WCAG assumed the ability to > use AT to provide access. Closed functionality is defined as functionality > where AT is prevented from being used by physical design or policy. So > the WCAG2ICT task force concluded that for closed functionality — the > effects of WCAG (esp the “programmatically determinable” provisions - where > AT was assumed) would have to be provided in other ways - since AT can’t > be used with closed functionality. > WCAG obviously doesn’t provide the guidelines for the hardware parts of > devices either — so those need to be added to WCAG (and are in 508) along > with platform requirements. > > > Perhaps some of what we are talking about can be addressed with new > techniques for meeting existing provisions in different platforms or > devices. > while others might be extension provisions. > > but even in an extension - if conformance is involved - the provisions all > need to meet the normal provisions for a ‘requirement’ or success > criterion. > > It will be interesting to see if we are able to identify any new > provisions that meet the usual criteria for being a requirement. > Here are 4 - (I might have forgotten one) > > 1. *Is it measurable and testable?* - (e.g. clear criterion that are > pass fail) (you can’t require something if the person cannot determine if > they have passed) > 2. *Is it clear/internally consistent *— if you have 10 people > evaluate 20 pieces of content against a provision - there will be high > level of agreement on whether the pieces of content meet the criterion (e.g > high inter-rater reliability) (It isnt fair if people can’t generally > agree on whether something passes or not) > 3. *Can the provision can be applied across * > 1. *all types of pages *(static, dynamic, web apps), > 2. *all levels of content* (simple through technical such as > physics sites, medical sites etc.) > 3. *all devices that the content will be shown on *(or evaluated > on) > 4. *WITHOUT fundamentally changing the content, its purpose or its > effectiveness.* (e.g. rewiring a medical or physics site > 4. *Is it practical to apply this to all web sites in the world (that > we want to use the guidelines)* > 1. (e.g. we did not include a sign language alternative for all web > content in WCAG 2.0 because the cost would be enormous and there simply are > not enough people skilled in transforming all sites into sign language to > provide re-presentation in sign language of even a small fraction of all > the web pages — even if the web wasn’t changing every day). ( similar > problem would occur if we wanted all web pages to be in plain language. > Trying to convert just one site into plain language points out the enormous > skill and time required to do this. We did it for a simple 4 page > “research subject disclosure form” and it took days and our whole team. > And this would be true for any complex site. > > > In WCAG 2.0 we had many more things that we identified that could make > this type or that type of page more accessible to different groups. And we > included many as advisory - and need to keep identifying and documenting > more. But before it can be a general requirement for Web pages - it would > need to meet all of the above - and that was much harder. A smaller set. > > In thinking about creating any guidelines for general application (all > websites) the above list of 4 criteria is a good first test to see if the > idea/ provision can qualify — or whether it would need to be an advisory > technique to be applied when and where appropriate. (We ran into this in > WCAG many times - and it is very painful to not be able to include good > advice because it couldn’t be a provision. In at least one case we > included a testable provision just so that we had a place to attache a lot > of good advisory techniques that would couldn’t get in as success criterion > because we couldn’t satisfy the criterion for doing so. > > *IDEA - Perhaps we can create more requirements if we constrain the scope > of their application.* > for example - *Guidelines for general, non-technical information, > transaction and shopping pages* > If we were talking about general information pages — or general > transaction pages (e.g. shopping) we could come up with guidance that > would be more far reaching (and still practical) than if we tried to > create guidelines for application across all web sites and content types > (where many of the provisions would not be possible highly technical > information or highly complex operations like programming or creating > spreadsheet-like formulas > > Just a thought. Perhaps we can push the envelop if we don’t try to > include all types/sites in the envelope like WCAG had to. > > *gregg* > > ---------------------------------- > Gregg Vanderheiden > gregg@raisingthefloor.org > > > > > On Apr 5, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> wrote: > > A couple of things come to mind for discussion. Are the extensions meant > to be additions to WCAG 2.0 for specific contexts? Or are there instances > where they might override WCAG 2.0 given a particular context? > By definition WCAG 2.0 is supposed to be flexible enough to apply to > different platforms, devices and languages (no longer HTML-centric) on the > web, but once we apply it outside of the usual context, for example, in > automotive interiors or on something like Google glass, are all bets off? I > like the idea of extensions being supplementary, but I think we have to be > careful to avoid offering them as reinterpretations of existing WCAG > criteria. Otherwise we will cause confusion as well as weaken the authority > of WCAG 2.0. > > I think we also want to avoid re-writing WCAG every time a new use case > appears. :^) > > Mike > > > On Apr 4, 2015, at 9:53 AM, alands289 <alands289@gmail.com> wrote: > > Since WCAG 2.0 is stable and is also an ISO standard, is there a challenge > in adding to it via extensions? > These are almost like revisions. > > Before we determine what they all should be we need to determine how to > relate new things to the already approved WCAG 2.0 that governments and > organizations are using. > > From the eyes of the user: > What authority do these new items have? > Why should I do them, all I really need to do is WCAG 2.0? > Who says these are related and required? > > Best Regards, > Alan > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®4 > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> > Date:04/03/2015 7:43 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > Subject: WCAG Agenda April 7 2015 > > The WCAG WG will be meeting on Tuesday, 7th April 2015 at 11AM Eastern US > > (Length: up to 90 minutes) > > Bridge: +1.617.761.6200 (US) Passcode: 9224# > > IRC: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org> port: 6665 channel #wai-wcag > > Scribe list:https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List > > Agenda > > 1) TPAC final call > > 2) Extension model discussion: > > Including the sub topics: > > Background pointers > What type of extensions? > Will extensions be A, AA, AAA? > Will extensions conform to WCAG requirements for success criteria? > Categorisation of current open issues in the context of the extension model > > 3) WCAG working group and public engagement/interaction > > Thanks > -- > Joshue O Connor/Andrew Kirkpatrick > WCAG working group co-chairs > > > >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 12:42:06 UTC