Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

>For the record David I disagree with how you remember it, but there is no
need to go there.

Unfortunately, I think we are already there. It seems there is a narrative
which is often brought up about WCAG 2 on the calls and in public.

I agree we all have things we would have liked to see different in WCAG 2
at the time. For instance, as the main author of SC 1.4.8, I would have
liked to have seen it at AA rather than AAA. But consensus is a critical
and precarious thing in the success of a standard.

Another example, we were hoping that by providing everything in text that
the cognitive community would develop ways to simplify and re-present
language. But the AT community didn't materialize any solutions, except a
little known feature of Safari called "Summary". There are over 250
languages, all with different ways of measuring levels and comprehension.
It was the best we could do at the time.

One of the great contributions I attribute mostly to you was the suggestion
of text handles for SCs. It helped the cognitive community and everyone
else.

The final draft of WCAG was adopted by many countries and legislatures. It
got good reviews from most stakeholders. I think we would do well if we can
get that kind of broad response to 2.1 meanwhile trying to move the needle
forward.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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 Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> For the record David I disagree with how you remember it, but there is no
> need to go there.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:55:17 +0200 *David
> MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca <david100@sympatico.ca>>* wrote ----
>
> I don't think that narrative is accurate regarding WCAG 2...
>
> WCAG 2 was a consensus document between many stakeholder groups including
> industry, and it had broad support including support from the Lighthouse
> foundation for low vision. It did not receive one formal objection. WCAG 2
> did the very best with the current state of accessibility at the time.
> Naturally,  for an update, we want to look at any new developments on the
> web, and also review any new research on people with disabilities. Some of
> these gaps in WCAG 2, we can address in 2.1, however some of the proposed
> SCs seem more like a wish list for future browsers ... which is beyond our
> scope in 2.1.
>
> I think we have to find the VENN intersection between:
>
> 1) ACCESSIBILITY: what will make a significant difference to our
> stakeholders with disabilities.
> 2) VIABILITY: what is reasonable to expect of businesses stakeholders.
> 3) FEASIBILITY: what is mature enough to technically require of authoring
> stakeholders.
>
> I think WCAG did that well in 2008 and I have confidence we can do that
> for 2.1 in 2017.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> http://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 Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WCAG 2 left out a lot of people with disabilities. One would expect
> lot of new words to include them.
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
> <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then *how* are we going to expect getting feedback and ideas on testing
> and
> > techniques on those items that might be ‘At Risk’?
> >
> >
> >
> > * katie *
> >
> >
> >
> > Katie Haritos-Shea
> > Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
> >
> >
> >
> > Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
> > Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
> >
> > NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an
> > expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify
> that I
> > am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and -
> that
> > my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque
> Systems.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:42 PM
> > To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
> > Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
> >
> >
> >
> >>>The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
> >>> include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time
> the
> >>> FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
> >>> as/when.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That makes sense to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David MacDonald
> >
> >
> >
> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> >
> > Tel:  613.235.4902
> >
> > LinkedIn
> >
> > twitter.com/davidmacd
> >
> > GitHub
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/01/2017 18:06, David MacDonald wrote:
> >
> > but I'm concerned that the world is watching for WCAG next, and has been
> > waiting over 8 years. Is this the first thing we want to release to
> > these stakeholders in 8 years?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> > I think we may want to postpone our release date for the FPWD, until we
> > can parse these, figure out how we are going to organize them and make
> > some preliminary vetting.
> >
> >
> > The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
> > include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the
> > FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
> > as/when.
> >
> > Please don't consider delaying the timeline. Eight years is far too long
> as
> > it is - let's not make it worse.
> >
> > Léonie.
> >
> >
> > --
> > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>