Re: WCAG extension

Hi Steve,

The Chairs or Judy may be able to address the long range plan.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 7/28/15, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> An important difference (I think) between the proposed WCAG extensions
> mechanism and the HTML WG extensions mechanism is that the HTML extensions
> were/are being produced in a situation where the core spec is being
> actively developed and where appropriate extensions are merged into the
> core. This is what happened with 2 extension specs I worked on:
>
> main element: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-main-element/
> alt techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
>
> Both of which were integrated into HTML5.
>
> With the WCAG extensions there appears to be no integration path as work on
> the core (WCAG 2x) is not chartered.
>
> Also please note there is a difference between HTML extensibility (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#extensibility-0) and HTML
> extensions.(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications) the
> latter being a WG process.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>
>
> On 27 July 2015 at 19:01, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Laura,
>> As I read through those references,  I come away thinking that they
>> seem to support the views I expressed in my last email.
>> i. The example of HTML5 being extensible  ... it is a spec for a
>> technology, unlike WCAG2. Besides I understand apparently HTML5 has
>> been written in a manner that permits extensions to be written.
>> Even when a technology spec changes it can be  a change like from ARIA
>> 1.0 to ARIA 1.1 or HTML4 to HTML5.
>> And about WAI-ARIA being  a separate recommendation in its own right:
>> Absolutely. But it is a technology spec that does "extend" HTML. Is
>> that not how one should be interpreting "extensibility"?
>>
>> ii. In the minutes:
>> "AWK: we have the post-wcag2 wiki. We need to look at those items to
>> inform our decisions, as well as the work of the mobile and cognitive
>> task forces".
>> I think that is reffering to  the scope for a new  WCAG2.x. That can
>> alter  normative content of WCAG2 / add new stuff ... something that
>> may not be accomplished via an extension.
>>
>> iii. "In that document, it says, an extension wouldn't impact a
>> country's law that referenced WCAG 2.0 until the law changed to be
>> WCAG 2.0 +".
>> Exactly, there has to be a new WCAG like WCAG2.1 or WCAG3 and the law
>> needs to reference that. Even today, there may be some state laws for
>> accessibility that still reference WCAG1.
>>
>> So without specific examples, it is difficult to understand  what
>> extensibility means in the context of WCAG2 and how it can be
>> implemented or  what its impact might be.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Sailesh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/15, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Sailesh,
>> >
>> > For more background I believe that the extension idea was discussed at
>> > the April 7, 2015 working group meeting. Check the minutes:
>> > http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03
>> >
>> > The HTML WG and modularity and extension info may also be useful:
>> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#modularity
>> > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#Modular
>> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionHowTo
>> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications
>> >
>> > It seems that back in April, Josh and Michael did some work in the
>> > Wiki on a WCAG Extensions Framework document:
>> > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework
>> > In that document, it says, an extension wouldn't impact a country's
>> > law that referenced WCAG 2.0 until the law changed to be WCAG 2.0 +
>> > extension conformance claim.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Laura
>> >
>> > On 7/27/15, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
>> >> Josh, Laura et al
>> >> Here is my take on your first question: "Can extensions modify WCAG
>> >> 2.0
>> >> SC?"
>> >>
>> >> The term extensibility applies really to technologies and not to
>> >> specifications like WCAG 2.
>> >> WAI-ARIA  extends HTML for instance because "The incorporation of
>> >> WAI-ARIA is a way for an author to provide proper semantics for custom
>> >> widgets to make these widgets accessible, usable, and interoperable
>> >> with assistive technologies".
>> >> I reviewed the references in Boland's email as well as Laura's and
>> >> could not relate the term "extensibility"  with specs like WCAG2.
>> >>
>> >> Just like WCAG1 evolved into WCAG2, WCAG2 can evolve into WCAG 2.1 or
>> >> 2.2... or directly into WCAG3.
>> >> WCAG 2 is a guideline or standard if you will, and is often
>> >> incorporated  / referenced into law.
>> >> "Changing" WCAG2 by an extension may require changes to such laws too
>> >> (also noted by Wayne).
>> >> In a sense, WCAG2 has already extensibility built in through the 3
>> >> levels: A, AA and AAA.
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan's more concrete thought like, "For example, we might want to
>> >> create a 2.5 touch gesture guideline similar to 2.1 for keyboard
>> >> access" gave me a sense of what extensibility might refer to in the
>> >> context of WCAG2.
>> >> I would not call such a change an extension but WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 etc.
>> >> ... a new recommendation entirely.
>> >> And specifically with regard to the touch gesture guideline being
>> >> suggested, I believe it is addressed by WCAG 2. Refer to
>> >> "keyboard interface - interface used by software to obtain keystroke
>> >> input
>> >> Note 1: A keyboard interface allows users to provide keystroke input
>> >> to programs even if the native technology does not contain a
>> >> keyboard".
>> >> In this context, also refer to WAI-ARIA goals in the Introduction[1]
>> >>
>> >> In short, I am not really clear  of "extensibility" as it applies to
>> >> WCAG2.
>> >> Changes to WCAG2 can be done in increments  so it is pushed out in a
>> >> shorter time frame as compared to the complete overhaul from WCAG 1 to
>> >> WCAG2. Such a change will permit to normative content of WCAG2 based
>> >> on implementation experiences and new developments.
>> >> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#introduction
>> >>
>> >> Thanks and regards,
>> >> Sailesh Panchang
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 7/27/15, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hi Jonathan and all,
>> >>>
>> >>> The coordinated piece is under Harmonization section in the proposed
>> >>> principles. They currently read:
>> >>>
>> >>> * "Extensions SHOULD NOT conflict with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
>> >>> conformance requirements."
>> >>>
>> >>> * "Extensions SHOULD harmonize with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
>> >>> conformance requirements."
>> >>>
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles#Harmonization
>> >>>
>> >>> Any ideas for improvement?
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, the meaning of the keywords SHOULD NOT and SHOULD are taken
>> >>> from  RFC 2119.
>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Kindest Regards,
>> >>> Laura
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7/26/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Joshue,
>> >>>>> We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> available. [1]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree with the general consensus from the meeting.  I was not
>> present
>> >>>> so
>> >>>> I
>> >>>> wanted to make sure you heard from me.  One item that came up in the
>> >>>> MATF
>> >>>> was that we were thinking about creating guidelines within the scope
>> of
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> 4 main principles.  For example, we might want to create a 2.5 touch
>> >>>> gesture
>> >>>> guideline similar to 2.1 for keyboard access.  We'd want to make
>> >>>> sure
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> these conventions are coordinated between task forces.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best Regards,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jonathan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jonathan Avila
>> >>>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>> >>>> SSB BART Group
>> >>>> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 703-637-8957 (o)
>> >>>> Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:10 AM
>> >>>> To: WCAG
>> >>>> Subject: WCAG extension
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tues call we discussed WCAG extensions, and I am bringing the
>> >>>> topic
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> the list.
>> >>>> We would like your input on these three main areas that we see are
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> main
>> >>>> potential areas of contention:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some core questions, for WCAG extensions are:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Can extensions modify WCAG 2.0 SC?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Must conformance to 'WCAG 2.0 plus extension' be also backwards
>> >>>> compatible
>> >>>> with WCAG without extension?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Can extensions even conflict with each other?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tues call for some general background we had general agreement
>> that:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For question 1:
>> >>>> There was a general sense on the call of 'yes', an extension may
>> >>>> alter
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> conformance requirement for a given SC. For some context, this would
>> >>>> mean
>> >>>> that an extension could increase WCAG conformance requirements but
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> decrease WCAG conformance requirements or difficulty in any way.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For question 2:
>> >>>> The sense from the group was 'yes'. Core WCAG is now and will always
>> be
>> >>>> stable and the basis for conformance, the extension may meet some
>> >>>> new
>> >>>> need
>> >>>> that doesn't exist in legacy user agents and therefore this proposal
>> >>>> may
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> considered to fit into our model of backwards compatibility.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For question 3:
>> >>>> The feeling was we want to reduce the potential for extensions to
>> >>>> conflict
>> >>>> in anyway, and co-ordination and supervision of TF work is therefore
>> >>>> vital.
>> >>>> We will work to ensure that TF facilitators are in tune with what
>> >>>> each
>> >>>> special group is doing, to reduce the potential for dissonance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To be practical however, we won't know until we start development of
>> >>>> these
>> >>>> extensions what the potential for conflict actually is.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> available. [1]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Laura L. Carlson
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Laura L. Carlson
>> >
>>
>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 11:42:13 UTC