Re: 1.3.1 question

(Quick unsorted and private brainstorming thoughts.)

While I sympathize with the refurbishment idea in principle, I think it 
is hard to do in practice.

The Spec needs to be as generally applicable as possible to not create 
loop holes. I don’t see how we can use non-normative failures to 
retroactively define what the spec does. If we have an WCAG update 
cycle, WCAG could redefine and narrow down techniques to use by using 
more precise success criteria.

I guess we need to evaluate in what way we want to carry over the 
sufficient/advisory techniques and failures into WCAG 3.0 (I guess that 
is the earliest point to make changes to this anyway) and how to make 
them current.

If we do the refurbishment model, we also take a huge burden to stay 
current with developments of all kinds and various technologies, 
probably even with proprietary ones. Else our work might seem to be 
ineffective.

Maybe we might want to require the use of advisory (or equivalent) 
techniques to reach level AA. That would still make old sites WCAG 
conforming but not to the level they used to be. But it would be a 
nightmare to evaluate. :-/

At least we still have some time to figure this out before 3.0 :-D

Eric

On 5 Apr 2016, at 16:22, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:

> +1 to both ideas!
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | 
> Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn 
> Profile | Office: 703-371-5545
>
>
>
> From: Paul J. Adam [mailto:paul.adam@deque.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 2:35 PM
> To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
> Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; David MacDonald 
> <david100@sympatico.ca>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Mike Elledge 
> <melledge@yahoo.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Patrick 
> H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> I like the Refurbishment Model approach! We don’t want to tell web 
> developers they only need to implement web a11y techniques from 2008 
> when they’re creating a new site in 2016 or updating their old site.
>
>
>
> I also like the Failure Techniques Date approach.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Paul J. Adam
> Accessibility Evangelist
> www.deque.com <http://www.deque.com>
>
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com 
> <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Use the Refurbishment Model.
>
> For years buildings have been exempt form architectural barrier 
> upgrades if they met requirements at some point. The next time the 
> building is refurbished it is brought up to code. This is to protect 
> institutions that adopt building codes early from endless change.
>
> Google and sites like it should follow this model. Next time they 
> change anything on their site, they come up to conformance. The 
> techniques were not available in 2008 to meet 1.3.1 for headers and 
> footers.  They are now.
>
> Next time a page is upgraded, fix it.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL 
> <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> That is a good idea, but, I am thinking of the conformance issue 
> overall – in that case, even though Techniques aren’t relative to 
> conformance – I would like to see the Update Model be consistent, 
> across what we do….
>
>
>
> So in that vein, I would like to say that Techniques might best be 
> mapped to WCAG or WCAG/UAAG/ATAG specific versions, and then attach 
> what we call additional  *Best Practices* to the Requirements (Success 
> Criteria) and supporting materials to the NEXT version of the standard 
> – as we see them become relevant while folks are still conforming to 
> an older version. Then as folks begin to conform to the new version, 
> they will or may have already implemented those Best Practices, and 
> will more rapidly be able to conform to the new version of WCAG or 
> WCAG/UAAG/ATAG.
>
>
>
> ​​​​​Does that make sense?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545>  |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> 
> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | 
> Office: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545>
>
>
>
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca 
> <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca> ]
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 12:38 PM
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> >
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >; Mike Elledge 
> <melledge@yahoo.com <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com> >; Andrew Kirkpatrick 
> <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >; Patrick H. Lauke 
> <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> >; ALAN SMITH 
> <alands289@gmail.com <mailto:alands289@gmail.com> >; Paul Adam 
> <paul.adam@deque.com <mailto:paul.adam@deque.com> >
> Subject: Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> Hi Katie
>
>
>
> Do you think creating a date field for failure techniques could work? 
> This might allow us to post failures as solutions become available.  
> Companies that have sites before the date don't need to worry about 
> these failures, whereas new sites would be expected to pay attention 
> to them. Of course WCAG WG would have nothing to do with 
> enforcement... but it would give us a way to write failures without 
> disadvantaging old sites.
>
>
>
> We could do this in the "Applicability" section. "This failure applies 
> to content created after MM/DD/YYYY."
>
>
>
>  We will run into this situation in the next standard where techniques 
> are up to date but there missing failures as things on the web change. 
> I think this might address our original intent in WCAG 2 of having an 
> ever green standard.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL 
> <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> I agree that Techniques can and should be written to address these 
> issues today, as they are *one possible way* to achieve the outcome 
> the Success Criteria calls for.
>
>
>
> But you are correct, we need to wait  before making any Failures until 
> we have provide new Requirements, in an new standard version, that 
> specifically states that they address these technologies. IMHO….
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545>  |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> 
> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | 
> Office: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545>
>
>
>
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca 
> <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca> ]
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 11:28 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Cc: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com> >; 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >; 
> Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk 
> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> >; ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com 
> <mailto:alands289@gmail.com> >; Paul Adam <paul.adam@deque.com 
> <mailto:paul.adam@deque.com> >
> Subject: Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> ​As per my first email in this thread, ​most of us agree that WCAG 
> as currently written can't move the goal posts very easily as new 
> great accessible technologies like ARIA are invented, for sites that 
> previously met WCAG.
>
>
>
> But I think Paul's fresh eyes do point out something I've thought 
> about for a while as we do requirements gathering for WCAG NEXT. And 
> perhaps even something we can do now...
>
>
>
> WCAG 2 was designed to be every green. The success criteria were 
> carefully written in order to ensure that as new technologies were 
> invented, that they could be incorporated into WCAG. For the most part 
> that has happened. We created Silverlight techniques, WAI ARIA 
> techniques, and HTML5 techniques etc.  none of which were mature when 
> WCAG2 was created.  However, our failure techniques have not kept pace 
> with these new ways of doing things because we didn't want to create a 
> situation where an old site that met WCAG no longer meets WCAG because 
> a new failure was introduc
>
>
>
> Naturally we want people to use the new technologies where there was 
> no previous good solution. For instance, on new web sites
>
> - No page that has visually distinct headers, footers, Nav bars, main 
> content, and asides should be without an ACCESSIBLE NAME  (and/or 
> ACCESSIBLE DESCRIPTION) for those sections.
>
> - No link text should have an ambiguous ACCESSIBLE NAME  (or 
> ACCESSIBLE DESCRIPTION), so the days of click here, read more, showing 
> up in links lists should be a thing of the past.
>
>
>
> HTML5 and WAI ARIA have solved these problems with new HTML elements, 
> roles, aria-label, aria-labelledby etc...
>
>
>
> So how can we ensure that new sites do take advantages of these new 
> ways to solve old problems that previously were just hacked, or mostly 
> not done at all?
>
>
>
> I'd like to brainstorm a proposal. What if we create a date field on 
> failure techniques? Agencies, legislature, and governments can use 
> these date fields to determine if a certain failure is applicable 
> based on when the content was created. The government of Ontario is a 
> precident for this. They have a date on the AODA, because they 
> understand that solvent companies create new web sites every few 
> years. So they require the new sites meet WCAG. if we had date fields 
> on our  new failures, then if the site was built after the failure was 
> created it would fail SC 1.3.1 if there wansn't an ACCEISBLE NAME or 
> DESCRIPTION on a section of  a page, or could fail that LEARN MORE 
> link that didn't reference the description heading or provide an 
> aria-label or title etc...
>
>
>
> What do you think... could it work for WCAG NEXT, or even this 
> version.?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com 
> <mailto:alands289@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> I appreciate you sending this out. I had originally replied to the 
> emails regarding 1.3.1 and landmarks about the use of 
> landmarks/regions and their labeling  as a way to meet 1.3.2 (by these 
> defining and providing a meaningful sequence to the page/information 
> structure) as this was something I ran into and had be asked about.
>
> Since it is not listed in WCAG 2.0 1.3.2 and I agree that 1.3.2 can be 
> subjective, I thought it warranted a question to the team.
>
>
>
> Best.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for 
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> From: Mike Elledge <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 9:37 AM
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> ; Patrick H. Lauke 
> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: 1.3.1 question
>
>
>
> Hi All--
>
>
>
> I'd like to understand better how persons who use screen readers feel 
> about this issue. With WebAIM surveys indicating increased use of 
> headings and regions I worry that we may be underestimating their 
> benefit. I recognize that the application of 1.3.2 can be subjective, 
> that flexibility in presenting data is important, and that bringing 
> legacy applications into compliance can be time-consuming. Ultimately 
> our objective has to be how to best serve the needs of users, however.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 8:21 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick 
> <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Patrick,
> Thanks for chiming in, and welcome to the group!
>
> Thanks of course to everyone who is contributing their opinions here, 
> I’m just singling Patrick out as he just joined the WG two hours 
> ago… :)
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/4/16, 06:54, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk 
> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>> Apologies for jumping straight in here after only having been 
>> officially
>> nominated/joined...but as this whole discussion around 1.3.1 was the
>> trigger that made me officially join, here's what I've just sent as
>> comment to the survey 
>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/
>>
>> (with further apologies as this was probably already
>> touched-on/discussed here):
>>
>> Landmarks are not required. "Landmarks are *a* technique to provide
>> information/structure. They cannot be required (nor can any other
>> specific technique/implementation) as at the time WCAG 2.0 was
>> formalised they weren't even in existence/supported, to my knowledge.
>> Claiming they are would retrospectively fail sites that up until now
>> passed on this point.
>>
>> More generally, in my view there is no hard requirement to always 
>> having
>> to identify landmarks on every single page, in every single document.
>> Key here is "information important for comprehension will be 
>> perceivable
>> to all". Is every instance of a fairly clearly defined footer 
>> (perhaps
>> with a heading, a list of links to Ts&Cs, privacy policy, a copyright
>> notice) completely non-understandable to a user who cannot perceive 
>> its
>> styling? Will real users be confused by a lack of <footer> element or
>> relevant ARIA role? Further, is a role="region" (another sufficient
>> technique for 1.3.1) then NOT acceptable compared to 
>> role="contentinfo"?
>>
>> IF you determine that it is important to identify explicitly which 
>> part
>> of the page is the header, which is the footer, which is the main; IF
>> you don't deem it understandable enough for real users if these are
>> simply happening sequentially; IF you deem the structure of the 
>> overall
>> page so complex that a real user who can't visually perceive the page
>> structure would be confused/unable to understand it otherwise; THEN
>> something needs to be in place that further clarifies this structure.
>> you can choose aria landmarks, or aria regions, or headings, or some
>> other implementation that may not have even been dreamed 
>> up/documented
>> in the non-normative techniques document. the HOW is not important. 
>> what
>> matters is the end result: will a real user be less confused /
>> understand the overall structure of the page better than before. 
>> jumping
>> from this to "WCAG requires aria landmarks" is reaching.
>>
>> P
>> -- 
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk/>  | 
>> https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/  <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | 
>> http://redux.deviantart.com <http://redux.deviantart.com/>
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>




--

Eric Eggert
Web Accessibility Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)