Re: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

I also can not handel too much contrast.



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter







---- On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:27:39 +0200 Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk wrote ---- 

I beg to differ on increasing contrast.  High contrast is a nightmare for some people like me with dyslexia.  We require sufficient contrast - too high and we start climbing the
 walls...



From: John Foliot [john.foliot@deque.com]

Sent: 22 February 2016 19:19

To: 'Katie Haritos-Shea'

Cc: 'David MacDonald'; 'CAE-Vanderhe'; 'Jason J White'; 'Sailesh Panchang'; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'

Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2







Hi Katie,
 
My concern is making new Success Criteria (whether brand new, or modifying a new SC to make it ‘stronger’) user-group specific. It perpetuates a ghetto mentality
 that runs counter to our bigger message (aka Universal Design). 
 
The fact that a TF that is looking specifically at issues related to Low Vision users (or Cognitive users, or Mobile users – which sort of is everybody) helps
 bring focus to those types of needs, and ensures that the next-gen WCAG addresses shortcomings that specifically affects that group, but I will suggest that increasing the contrast requirements [sic] will benefit not only LV users, but perhaps Mobile users
 and Seniors as well, so making it a “Low Vision” Success Criteria in name feels (to me) wrong.
 
I had previously suggested an additional “dot-number” scheme (such as your suggested 1.4.3.1) and that may be one way forward, although again, looking at how
 we’ve addressed other “strengthening” requirements previously (for example 1.4.3 versus 1.4.6) suggests that creating new Success Criteria (still grouped under one of the four main ‘headings’ of P, O, U, or R) is more ‘flexible’ and/or consistent moving forward.
 
If I were King of the World (which sadly I’m not) I’d look to author new Success Criteria across all of the current Task Forces, and once a specific SC meets
 group approval, we roll it into a “Living Document” type scheme, and that we’d articulate specific Milestone dates, at which point all “approved” new SC, along with the current WCAG 2.0 becomes WCAG 2.1 [sic] – fully realizing that we can’t actually do that
 today with the current WCAG WG Charter today (although there is some suggestion that we may be able to do a WCAG 2.0-2016, which would get around some of the concerns about a living document WCAG, although it seems to me to be a silly distinction in many ways).

 
Perhaps we need to look at addressing that problem at a higher level?
 
JF
 



From: Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]


Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM

To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>

Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2


 
I can see and suggest relating any new SC to a specific WCAG 2 SC  number when it makes sense to do so - such as a new level of Minimum Contrast from LV such as; 1.4.3 + LV -- or -- 1.4.3.1LV. In the circumstances where there is not relevant existing WCAG
 2 SC and a new one needs to be added such as; (for say a touch target size) place it under the relevant Guideline (which I'll pretend a new GL '2.5 Make content East to Operate' (for example only) add a new SC 2.5.1-Mobile: Touch Target (Minimum).
In any case, developers and tester will be using multiple checklists.
I am not married to this suggestion. It is just an idea.
My two cents.
Katie Haritos-Shea

703-371-5545

On Feb 22, 2016 10:10 AM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:



+1 (again).



I strongly feel that adding new SC, as opposed to making edits to existing SC is the right way forward, even if (in practice) a new SC modifies/strengthens an existing SC. We’ve done that already (as I noted previously).
 
Additionally, I worry about speaking in terms of WCAG 2.0 + [user group] style conformance reporting, as once we start getting new success criteria
 from different Task Forces this will spin into a confusing and onerous task of reporting conformance. While I recognize that the current Charter does not allow for any other means of reporting the addition of new Success Criteria (such as perhaps a WCAG 2.1),
 I’ll stick my neck out and say that we collectively need to address this short-coming sooner rather than later.
 
JF
 



From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]


Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:00 PM

To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>

Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>;
 David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Subject: Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2


 


should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to

offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be

worded differently to convey what is intended?



 

Interesting.

 


You might have put your finger on it. 

 


when I read 



"Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be

worded differently to convey what is intended?


 


 


I read it as   “offer modifications to the existing set of WCAG 2.0 success criteria” meaning that it would extend the set — not edit the SC.


 


 


I think that editing the SC or re-using those number will create great confusion.


 


instead I suggest that new number be used - corresponding to the particular extension


 


SC XM-1      (for example for the first on in the Mobile extension) 


 


or  


 


SC XM-3.1.7   (for mobile — where 3.1.6  is the last SC number in 3.1 series   


 


If it is an extension of a particular SC it could say 


 


 SC XM-3.1.7 (which extends  SC 3.1.3)    




gregg


 



On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:

 


1. I understand that "The extension is not changing the SC in WCAG

2.0, it is modifying the SC in the context of the extension", then

should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to

offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be

worded differently to convey what is intended?

2. Yes, "All of the details regarding numbering and association with

the techniques are details that do need to be figured out", but this

extension requirements doc should explicitly state that the SCs  in an

extension will not duplicate  an SC# from the WCAG 2.0.

Else, an SC in the extension that has  a number identical to a WCAG

2.0 SC will surely create confusion  as Greg pointed out in his first

email especially with regard to documentation for techniques and

understanding.

It may not be very problematic for some changes  e.g. SC 1.4.3 in the

extension say, only changes the ratio from 4.5:1 to 5:1 to make it

stronger.

But consider what will happen, if say, SC 3.3.2 in the extension

begins with "Labels and instructions" instead of "Labels or

instructions".



I believe the above should be addressed, then the statement suggested

by David will absolutely fit in and not create room for any confusion.



Thanks,

Sailesh Panchang




 













 
----------------------------



http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC unless specifically stated.

If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.

Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.

Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

Further communication will signify your consent to this.
---------------------