Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

Sure... that's a friendly amendment...

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 10:57 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> I like it also David, but I would like to see WCAG’s SC’s occupy a larger
> portion of the circle for user needs.  My quick build on your version:
> http://awkawk.github.io/WCAG_venn.png
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 09:44
> To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 09:45
>
> 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 <(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 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
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>