Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?

Hi Michael,

Interesting idea, but I suspect it defeats the purpose of the current A,
AA, AAA ranking system, which was arrived at for each SC through a
composite of criticality and feasibility to deliver.

Given that, as noted, most entities today demand A & AA conformance (while
almost completely ignoring AAA Success Criteria) I think it is worth
questioning the use of A, AA, AAA in the Project Silver effort, but since
WCAG 2.1 needs to be 100% backward compatible, I fear this idea may
introduce more confusion than help.

FWIW, I personally would like to see all new SC under any given Principle
(or secondarily, Guideline) continue from the existing numbers. One example
(which has made the rounds on this list) is color contrast for actionable
icons, versus just text or images of text. I single this one out because it
is an augmentation of an existing SC, and I offer as well some proposed
language (first go-around) for when a SC is 'enhanced' or augmented like
this.

<example>

*1.4.10 Contrast (Minimum) Plus:*
     In addition to meeting *Success Criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast-contrast> *the visual
presentation of linked iconography also has a contrast ratio of at least
4.5:1 (AA)

</example>

(In other words, the new Success Criteria clearly indicates that it is
being built "on top" of an existing SC, by clearly stating that both the
'old' AND 'new' SC must be met for 2.1 compliance).

Thoughts?

JF

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> For a couple of meetings, we've discussed various possible scenarios for
> how to updated WCAG for the 2.1 release (as proposed in
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering)
> I have something I would like to float to the group.
>
> What if we made all existing 2.0 AA criteria into level A in 2.1 and
> introduced new criteria at AA and AAA levels?
>
> Potential benefits:
> Almost every jurisdiction currently measuring against WCAG 2.0 does so
> against Level AA. As far as I know, very few jurisdictions measure ONLY
> level A, and I am not aware of any that enforce level AAA.
> So by making the existing A and AA requirements all become level A in 2.1
> we would be resetting the baseline without altering any numbering.
>
> It would allow sites that currently meet 2.0 AA to immediately report
> compliance with 2.1 A, and then begin ramping up to meet the newly
> introduced requirements.
>
> As was made pretty clear in our discussions, the numbers are crucial for
> cross-referencing and reporting on compliance. But realistically, folks
> focus on the level for targets and they use the textual name of the
> criteria for meaning. With the letter level now established as the yard
> stick for measurement, and level A established as backward compatible, we
> would be free to introduce numbering updates for the new SC in whatever
> manner makes the most sense (for clarity, consistency, etc).
>
> Making existing criteria all be level A makes things less messy. For 2.1,
> there are two dozen new Level A proposed and almost as many new level AA.
> If all those went ahead as proposed and you are trying to report both WCAG
> 2.0 and 2.1 compliance for your product, imagine how convoluted your
> mappings are going to be, and how much additional churn that is going to
> create for teams. Such things will have a significant affect on adoption
> rates for 2.1.
>
> I'm sure folks will perceive pros and cons to this, but I thought I'd don
> my body armour and throw it out there.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion