Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

David,

I love, love, love this VENN diagram.  What I would add to it (if I were in
charge of the world) is the small refinement of saying that WCAG level A
and level AA is the intersection between accessibility, viability and
feasibility.  I think AAA can get by with lower viability and/or lower
feasibility.

My 2 cents,
G

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773


*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:16 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> ​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 <(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 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>