Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?

David, just to clarify for others on the thread, the law in Ontario 
requires WCAG 2.0 AA for the Ontario provincial government (with a couple 
of exceptions). If I remember right, what you cite is for other public 
sector (municipal, etc) and large private orgs in the province.
I'm not sure I follow that pushing two dozen new Level A criteria into 2.1 
is going to be easier to stomach for Ontario's legislators.
They are obviously going to have to put in a new schedule for adoption of 
2.1 regardless.
If 2.1 Level A is the same as the 2.0 AA target they have for 2021, why 
would they be reluctant to adopt on the same timeline? On the other hand, 
if they encounter a whole new set of level A criteria before 2021, I can 
see some arguing to delay the adoption of 2.0 AA. Which leads me to an 
interesting question.
Do you consider the level A candidates as more critical than the existing 
level AA?

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
To:     Michael Gower/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Cc:     John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2017-01-09 02:11 PM
Subject:        Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating 
debate?



I have a fair number of clients asking for Single A. I propose AA to them 
but in the end it is their money and Level A is what they want to pay for, 
not AA. The law requires A here in Ontario until 2021. If we force all the 
SC that were AA in WCAG 2 into A for 2.1, there will be reluctance to 
upgrade the law to require 2.1. This is another aspect of backward 
compatibility which requires consideration.

I would not advise changing the level of SCs for 2.1 except for those 
proposed by task forces for specific accessibility purposes. There was 
much more thought that went into the choice of levels in WCAG 2 than may 
be evident.

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 Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> 
wrote:
Thanks for the reaction, John.
Given 2.0 is effectively two levels: do it (A and AA) and ignore it (AAA), 
taking all of the 'do it' criteria and putting them into a single level in 
2.1 would seem to me to give greater flexibility going forward while fully 
maintaining backward compatibility.
Speaking of backward compatibility, altering the numbering or requirements 
of the 38 currently required SC is going to pose a more confusing 
experience than what I'm proposing, yet I have heard that proposed by a 
number of individuals.
" 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."
I get the historical reasoning behind 3 layers of categorization in 2.0, 
but it seems rather academic, given how it has been adopted and the 
experiences of the last decade. How many people would argue that level A's 
like Sensory Characteristics and Language of Page are as critical to 
accessibility as AA's like Focus Visible or Headings and Labels? Who would 
argue that the placing of 1.2.3 Audio Description etc. as a level A 
criterion has hastened its adoption?

Maintaining the status quo risks putting us in a situation where someone 
may take the complexity of 2.1's new interspersed A's and AA's, and simply 
reject all the AAs, even the ones that already existed or start doing some 
kind of piecemeal approach (all of the old A's and AA's plus the new A's). 
I suspect such a fear contributes to why many of the proposed new SCs are 
positioned as level A, even where their less complex forebears were AA or 
AAA.

What I'm proposing provides an adoption path for folks without having to 
undertake a lot of additional research or investigation. 

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility




From:        John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
To:        Michael Gower/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:        2017-01-09 12:42 PM
Subject:        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) 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