RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus


I’m pretty much another +1 to Jason.

I agree that some proposed SCs will not be ready in time. There could be a wide variety of factors for this.

My understanding is that we must make forward progress, and can do future iterations (such as WCAG 2.2) for the more difficult SCs or can roll them into Silver. I do not necessarily view an SC that’s not ready as being permanently pulled from inclusion. Although I think it’s possible that a proposed SC does not fit the mold of “guidance” because it’s not testable/measurable, wouldn’t apply to all sites, isn’t achievable, etc., and therefore would fail to be included. For example, simplified language is something that is too burdensome for some websites. A medical site, for example, needs to use very complex and precise terminology, diagrams, and so on. So does a cite for tax accountants, and a whole host of other sites geared toward various professions. My point is that there is a whole lot to consider and sometimes that takes time. We have a timeline, so some proposed SCs may not make the timeline. I’m ok with that.



From: lisa.seeman []
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:28 PM
To: Bradley Montgomery
Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org
Subject: RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus

Hi Rachel

I dont think putting them as AAA will make anyone look at them., certainly not tool developers.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<>, Twitter<>

---- On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:53:55 +0200 Bradley Montgomery<<>> wrote ----

I understand the point made today that we will have criteria at varying stages of completeness.  Some likely should not make it into the working draft but my understanding of AAA criteria was that they were intended to include SC that may be stretch goals based on current technology or techniques. Can we look at using AAA when the criteria are sound but we do not have clear technology to support them? Making them AAA would ensure that techniques get reviewed and discussed as part of the working draft and if we are able to answer outstanding questions we could move them up to AA  as part of the draft process.



From: lisa.seeman [<>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:17 PM
To: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <<>>
Subject: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus

Hi Folks
Andrew said on the call today that  SC that do not meet all the acceptance criteria left out of this draft . This is an issue that must get consensus. It should not be a decision the chairs and staff contact make by themselves.

My 2 cents is no. This is not ok.

It is essential that SC that address a user need such that, some users can not use content that does not conform, are in the draft for 2.1 at the end of the month. Even if they  do not have full consensus, and we may have identified issues with them. These issues can be identified as an editors note next to any relevant SC.

If we do not publish them we are making it significantly less likely that we will be able to include them into WCAG 2.1 when we get to CR. This means that people with disabilities that WCAG have not yet addressed, we will continue to not address. That is horrible and in my opinion, unacceptable . Further it is a step that shows that we have not made reasonable effort to include low vision and cognitive.

Let's explain with an example. A typical issue is testability - and a lack of testing tools. Often the tools are there, just not in use in the accessibility testing industry. For example, there a open sources natural language processing tools, and there are tools that test against word list (VOA have one for restricted languages, translation etc). If the simple lange criteria are included then the tool owners can get working making a user interface that is useable for our industry, and when we get to CR people will find this a testable SC.

Did you know Voice of America had such a tool for their simple language news  broadcast  when wcag 2.0 came out? They were talking about using it for accessibility, but because it ended up just being level AAA and using common words was not even a requirement there - they did not bother. No tools no SC. No SC no tools.

With this draft we have an opportunity to encourage our industry to look for new tools, look for new solutions and learn about new disabilities. They may need to install something new on there laptop. So be it.

 All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<>, Twitter<>

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 21:36:40 UTC