Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

> I think it's important to understand what WCAG is and isn't. In my
opinion, WCAG is not a place to invent solutions to accessibility barriers.

+1

I have previously advocated for a companion "Note" to be published with
WCAG 2.1, which would be the "requirements" document (along with all of the
awesome research produced) for those issues which currently do not have
scale-able, implementable solutions today.

We have precedent there with the MAUR, and as I mentioned on one of the
calls, I have now seen 2 Proof-of-Concept examples of accessible media
solutions that were created specifically based upon
articulated requirements in the MAUR - needs that lack robust solutions
today. The MAUR *is* the research and development document that precedes
adding additional Success Criteria into a mandated "standard", and for
those COGA and LV issues we face today in this Working Group that lack
robust solutions (but have recognized needs), I continue to suggest that a
Requirements NOTE would fill that necessary middle-ground.

JF

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:19 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> >Was that the case with WCAG 1.0 - was that more vetting or more
> enabling?
> The impression I had was that was groundbreaking in addressing the needs
> of the blind and some mobility issues.
>
> Perhaps Gregg could answer this better than I, but I think the role of
> WCAG 1 was the same as our current role. The standard itself was of course
> groundbreaking as a standard and a formal organization of all the great
> advice that was circulating accessibility circles. However, screen readers
> had existed for over 10 years prior to WCAG 1. The assistive technology and
> approaches to HTML were pioneered by Trace Research, IBM, Henter Joyce, and
> others great organizations.
>
> WCAG 1 formalized the great work that had emerged from its stakeholder's
> research and development.
>
> 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 Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:49 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> Was that the case with WCAG 1.0 - was that more vetting or more enabling?
>> The impression I had was that was groundbreaking in addressing the needs
>> of the blind and some mobility issues.
>> 2.0 might have been less so, but these things need to go back and forth a
>> bit. Every 18 years we might be able to push the envelope a bit more.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:47:08 +0200 *David
>> MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca <david100@sympatico.ca>>* wrote ----
>>
>> Individually, many of us are very engaged in cutting edge research,
>> creating inventions and dreaming of ways we can make the web more
>> inclusive.
>>
>> As a group, my understanding is that our role has been to survey all the
>> techniques and tools that are out there, and throw our collective weight
>> behind solutions that are implementable by *web authors* and also to inform
>> them of *how not to interfere* with existing tools.
>>
>> Once in a while we can push the envelope a little beyond those things,
>> but I don't think we can stray too far beyond that role without loosing
>> credibility.
>>
>> 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 Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:59 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I strongly disagree with Davids comment that we are just a vetting
>> committee.
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:11:26 +0200 * White<jjwhite@ets.org
>> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ----
>>
>> +1 to David’s comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:03 AM
>> *To:* Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; Joshue O Connor <
>> josh@interaccess.ie>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>;
>> W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we
>> should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
>>
>>
>>
>> >The group never considered Cognitive and LV disabilities with the
>> necessary care in the past to solve the real problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it's important to understand what WCAG is and isn't. In my
>> opinion, WCAG is not a place to invent solutions to accessibility barriers.
>> It is a place to VET existing solutions, and to provide a means for authors
>> to honour existing solutions. The fact that we are trying to create a
>> plugin that linearizes content, to show that it can be done, and are
>> encountering many problems in the process, shows that there are currently
>> no existing tools doing this. The fact that we are trying to accommodate
>> cognitive attributes that have not been recognized in any standard yet,
>> shows that there are currently no tools. I hope there soon will be. There
>> has been almost no progress on these tools since WCAG 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think both Lisa and Wayne have good points, the cognitive and low
>> vision community are both sorely lacking in adequate tools. The
>> cognitive community needs AT that will simplify language and interfaces. It
>> needs a standard of attributes to mark up content to read these and
>> personalize the interface. The Low vision community needs tools to
>> linearize content etc...
>>
>>
>>
>> WCAG can't fix that. When tools exist, then we can make requirements on
>> authors to not break the effective functioning of those tools or plugins
>> etc... This is what we've done with screen readers and it is what we can do
>> in other domains as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding WCAG's attentiveness to the needs of people with low vision and
>> cognitive disabilities. I was there. I saw the research available, I saw
>> the tools available. WCAG did everything in its power to make
>> requirements that were acceptable to all stakeholders given the lack of
>> tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to see our limited time put into trying to solve our current
>> problems within our current constraints. We have been charted to create a
>> backward compatible updated version of WCAG 2.0. Version 2.1. We can't
>> stray to ffar beyond that. We haven't been chartered to solve the lack of
>> sufficient solutions that don't exist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 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 Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you Lisa. The old WCAG did not study cognitive disabilities
>> enough to determine how to test ways to overcome barriers. WCAG 2.0 focused
>> on a narrow and easily defined set of disabilities with highly testable
>> barriers. It was not inclusive.
>>
>> I too find the current AG process frustrating. The group never considered
>> Cognitive and LV disabilities with the necessary care in the past to solve
>> the real problems. This is witnessed by their inadequate framework for
>> testing barriers for these disabilities.  They are imposing differential
>> standards to these disability groups because they are not looking for new
>> testing methods for a new type of problem. If the old testing techniques do
>> not work, then a proven barrier to access are left in place.
>>
>> Grappling with and solving the real needs of people with LV and Cognitive
>> disabilities is a test for the legitimacy of the AG working group as a
>> leader in accessibility guidelines. If guidelines and test procedures
>> cannot be expanded to accurately identify insurmountable barriers for
>> people in these disability groups, then the disability community will have
>> to look to other leadership for developing accessibility standards.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes I can see how small sample user testing techniques need to be built
>> by organizations the claim to test for accessibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> At the risk of shooting my self in the foot but ... to enable us to move
>> on
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone else see this as an issue. If I am the only one with a
>> problem with it, then I will conseed to consensus, rewrite the exceptions
>> that depend on it,  and we can move on.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:24:07 +0200 *Joshue O
>> Connor<josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>>* wrote ----
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Fair point or not, I don't at this point feel the need to go thru another
>> CFC that allows or does not allow user testing in situation x, or to limit
>> it under exception y. I'm not fully clear on the implication of doing such
>> a thing, nor am I clear on the reason why we might. You seem to be, which
>> is cool :-)
>>
>> My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a
>> requirement in 2.1. End of story. However, I don't want to wrangle our spec
>> to stop people from testing or imply that that cannot do it under situation
>> A or B. People can test all they like, in any situation, if they wish to as
>> far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> As I stated - at the moment, I feel I just don't fully grok some of the
>> points being made here but even with that aside - the original CFC was
>> clear IMO.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>
>> 15 February 2017 at 15:58
>>
>> Chairs,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lisa has a fair point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can I request that a second CfC go out that explicitly states that "we
>> should not allow user testing in exceptions" - for the same reasons that
>> user-testing for conformance was rejected?
>>
>>
>>
>> This way we can be sure that the consensus has been recorded properly and
>> accurately, and everyone understands what they are registering their
>> position on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> John Foliot
>>
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joshue O Connor
>> Director *| InterAccess.ie *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
>> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>> Thank you for your compliance.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion