Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

Agree, I've updated the diagram.

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


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 8:59 AM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote:

> 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
> <(512)%20963-3773>
>
> *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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>