Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

​Here is a VENN diagram of how I see Success Criteria.

http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/blogimages/venn-diagram-accessibility.png

Alternate text is:

The VENN diagram 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.
​

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 7:07 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> >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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>