- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:40:24 -0400
- To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- CC: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP52A5F2DDB4DC404B7E2CB1FE790@phx.gbl>
PS when I talk about where to put things in levels etc... I'm talking about as we move forward with extensions, nt about WCAG 2 core, which is stable. 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, Aug 16, 2015 at 8:02 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > In my experience, the reason we went from the priority system in WCAG 1 to > the Level A, AA, AAA in WCAG 2 was because WCAG 1 was highly criticized for > giving the perception of prioritizing one disability over another. > > In my memory, at the time of WCAG2, blindness gaps were easier to test, > measure and correct than many other disabilities. Barriers for the blind > were brick walls, and the things that helped the blind also helped many > other disabilities (Keyboard access, text alternatives etc, > programmatically associated labels etc...), and so there is a leaning on > those at Level A. > > It's a very difficult thing to document rationale for every decision > without risking a political minefield of appearing to prioritize one > disability over another, but I think we may have to do it going forward ... > however, we need to realize that doing so will slow our process down > because there will be very heated discussions in order to get consensus on > (1) rationale (2) what to put in (3) where to put things. Consensus is a > very delicate and difficult thing and if there is a miracle in the WCAG 2 > it is that we achieved consensus, without one formal objection. > > Each of us had things we would have liked to see different. For me, I > wrote most of 1.4.8 which I wish had been placed at Level AA. For others in > the group, they had things they wanted. > > But we all put our own personal agenda's AFTER the greater group > consensus. I'm grateful to have been involved in the consensus process, > without which, WCAG would never have gotten off the ground and included in > laws around the world. > > It was certainly not perfect, but so far I haven't seen a better process > proposed. I'm hoping with all these ideas we can improve the process, and > still reach the illusive and critical goal of consensus, so that the > outside world can have confidence in our recommendations. > > 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 Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In response to Phill. Perhaps, and I am really not sure. if a final >> normative statement of the rationale for classification should not be >> published with a WCAG extension. I realize it is process not guideline, but >> it is so essential to the credibility of the process it should be included >> as a formal glossary term that gives clear criteria. That is for example: A >> criterion is classified Level A if there is an identifiable class of people >> with disabilities who cannot use a website if the criterion is not met. A >> criterion is classified as Level AA if there is an identifiable class of >> people with disabilities can use the site but only with severe difficulty >> if the criterion is not met. A criterion is Level AAA if the site is usable >> by all disabilities identified by WCAG, but it will provide equal effectove >> access for some identified class of people with disabilities. >> >> The concept of accessibility is independent of feasibility of >> implementation. Standard print on paper is inaccessible almost all >> disabilities stemming from visual impairment. It may not be feasible to >> produce large print or braille versions of all publications, but the lack >> of feasibility does not create a situation in which standard print could be >> interpreted as accessible. >> >> I was clear that I was referring to American law when mentioned the >> concepts of fundamental alteration and undue burden, concepts I understand >> quite well from managing the accessibility initiative for a 23 campus, >> 450,000 student system. It appears that WCAG WG employed similar concepts >> when classifying success criteria as Level A, Level AA and Level AAA, but >> there was never a written justification of the decision process. That is a >> credibility gap, and it is serious. >> >> When did feasibility trump accessibility in classifying criteria and >> why? It is clear this was done, but there is no well defined process. >> >> I actually felt included in the WCAG 2.0 process, and I contributed many >> suggestions that were adopted. I am getting tired of people who >> participated in writing WCAG WG explaining what they really meant. The >> normative language should stand alone without interpretation from the >> authors. That is why in actual law there is a judiciary that interprets >> law independent of the original authors. >> >> One of the deep flaws in the WCAG process is the exceptional >> defensiveness of the authors, and WCAG WG taking ownership of every minute >> detail of interpretation. If we succeed in extending to WCAG 2.0, I >> sincerely hope that we can be open to interpretations that may differ from >> our original vision. Guidelines only live as long as they are open to >> reinterpretation to reflect changed realities and new discoveries. I don't >> see this happening with the current WCAG 2.0. I think it is harming W3C >> leadership in the area of accessibility. >> >> Wayne >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile < >> chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >> >>> TL;DR: Multiple factors for giving success criteria a level, without >>> documenting the decision rationale, causes a problem. We should fix that. >>> >>> I suggest that part of the long-term fix (which would be WCAG 3, rather >>> than an edited version of WCAG 2 which may or may not be worth doing >>> meanwhile) is to reduce the number of factors. >>> >>> More details after the recap of discussion… >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:39:52 +0200, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL >>> <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]Sent: Friday, August 14, >>>> >>> >>> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >>>>> >>>> […setting level decided on a balance of factors including how important >>> something is, whether it can be applied to all sites, and how hard that is… >>> it is not true that all essential requirements are level A, and level AA >>> requirements can be considered strictly less important…] >>> >>>> Hope this helps >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sure, but mostly what I already posted. What's missing is the >>>>> documented rationale for why an individual particular SC is considered >>>>> Level AA. We have all the "possible" factors, being 'Essential" was indeed >>>>> one of the factors, But we don't have documented which of the many possible >>>>> factors were considered for this particular SC. Yes we know in general that >>>>> all these factors may have been considered for all the SC. but, For >>>>> example, again, >>>>> Why was SC 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum assigned AA? >>>>> >>>> >>> KHS: I do not recall why this was delegated to AA. >>>> >>> >>> Why was SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible assigned AA? >>>>> >>>> >>> KHS: It is my recollection that this SC was placed at Level AAbecause of >>>> the default browser behavior (I am one who lobbied for >>>> it to be at Level A) – as you suggest Phill. >>>> >>> >>> Many feel it is essential, but mostly handled by the browser, is that >>>>> why? where is that written? >>>>> >>>> >>> KHS: I suspect you could find it in the minutes, I am not sure it >>>> was officially documented other than meeting minutes. >>>> >>> ... >>> >>>> Again, is having a synopsis of the rationale for why each individual >>>>> particular SC was assigned Level AA of value to everyone on this list? >>>>> >>>> >>> KHS: All I can say is it made sense via consensus to the group of people >>>> who were active in the Working Group – and those who provided review and >>>> feedback – at that time in history based on the technology as we knew it >>>> then. >>>> >>> >>> I think this last statement is an accurate summary of how we got to >>> where we are. >>> >>> This was done about a decade ago, and the Web has changed. >>> >>> We have (and I believe will always have) a hard time getting enough >>> knowledge into the group - particular issues seem to be that we lacked >>> sufficient strength in dealing with various "cognitive accessibility" >>> issues, some low vision issues, we certainly have a strong bias towards >>> english-speaking countries and their most familiar neighbours, and so on. >>> >>> And a decade after the people in the room made their best effort, others >>> are trying to use that work, with its known and unknown but mostly unstated >>> weaknesses, to build requirements. >>> >>> For those people - whether they are governments writing regulations as >>> in Section 508, or companies producing internal policies for their >>> developers (which is more relevant to my case), understanding the >>> importance of a given success criteria to people with disabilities is >>> critical. >>> >>> Knowing what a group of people thought ten years ago about how >>> applicable this was to websites in general, is almost irrelevant except to >>> understand why something seems to have a "lower priority" level than it >>> "should". >>> >>> In the same way, knowing what we thought ten years ago about how hard >>> something is doesn't have a lot of direct relevance to what should be >>> required in a given situation now. Different users basing requirements on >>> WCAG will have very different approaches to what is a "reasonable effort", >>> and in any case there are genuinely different technologies and solutions >>> available now. >>> >>> It would be very valuable to document for WCAG how important each >>> success criterion is to whom (sometimes there are different levels of >>> importance for different user groups, as Gregg already noted). >>> >>> The WCAG working group *should* do that work - it is one of the most >>> important ways that WAI can help policy-makers at all levels, who are one >>> key audience of our work. >>> >>> WCAG 2.0 has not been updated for a long time, and it seems that pattern >>> will continue (it was the same for WCAG 1). Providing some guidance for >>> people to decide where to focus their efforts first is valuable. I think an >>> important lesson is that we need to explain very clearly why each >>> requirement is there and how it got assigned a particular "level", so >>> people making downstream decisions 7 years later can judge whether they are >>> adopting something important, something that got overtaken by technology >>> development, or what… >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Chaals >>> >>> -- >>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex >>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com >>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 17 August 2015 13:40:57 UTC