Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC appliesbroadly

> is this how we are dealing with proposed SCs that wouldn’t necessarily
apply to all websites? “

Yes, sometimes things that are very specific in nature
​, ​
harder to test, etc... ​
are moved to AAA.

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, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:33 PM, <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kim,
>
>
>
> I appreciate you getting back on this.
>
>
>
> I’ll have to let the others answer your question:
>
>
>
>            “But I still have the larger question – is this how we are
> dealing with proposed SCs that wouldn’t necessarily       apply to all
> websites? “
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alan Smith
>
>
>
> *From: *kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:57 AM
> *To: *alands289@gmail.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>
> *Subject: *RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC
> appliesbroadly
>
>
>
> Hi Alan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for wading through my email and replying.
>
>
>
> Yes, of course. I’m sure there are a variety of people in highly skilled
> professions that also have disabilities. But I’m not sure there’s a lot of
> overlap between some of the SCs and the job that people in those
> professions have to do. For example, (picked somewhat at random so not sure
> this is the best example) https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/42
> requires plain language for all content and is proposed for either AAA or
> AA. I don’t think professional sites could comply with this.
>
>
>
> I believe you are suggesting that as long as we put the SC at AAA, it
> should be fine.
>
>
>
> But I still have the larger question – is this how we are dealing with
> proposed SCs that wouldn’t necessarily apply to all websites?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* alands289@gmail.com [mailto:alands289@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:10 PM
> *To:* Dirks, Kim (Legal); w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC
> applies broadly
>
>
>
> Kimberlee,
>
>
>
> I was reading through your email and I’m thinking is not possible that
> there would be “professionals” that would have disabilities?
>
>
>
> Do we not need to consider accessibility for employees as an employer to
> meet the US Government’s Section 503 if applicable?
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Smith
>
>
>
> *From: *kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:58 AM
> *To: *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject: *Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies
> broadly
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> It’s my understanding that our goal is to make every website accessible to
> everyone and develop guidelines that are universally applicable. Given
> that, I’m really struggling with how to apply some of the proposed SCs to *
> *all** websites.
>
>
>
> *Please note*: I’m using “website” generically – I’m including mobile
> apps, software, etc. I’m also using “computer” generically to include all
> devices we use to interact with digital content.
>
>
>
> *Proposal*
>
> Proposed SCs need to identify targeted types/categories of websites, based
> on expected users, because not all websites can or should be expected to
> conform to all categories of user needs. In other words, a site geared
> toward the practice of medicine doesn’t need to take into account my
> autistic nephew, but a bank site where he can check is bank balance, does.
>
>
>
> *Background*
>
> There are multiple “professional” websites. In fact, my company has over
> 150 digital product offerings. These sites are designed for highly educated
> professionals to be used in the course of their jobs. Our target audience
> includes legal professionals, data scientists, tax and accounting
> professionals and other expert users. These users are in careers that
> require a very high level of knowledge and cognitive functioning. Their
> *licenses* require a very high level of knowledge and cognitive
> functioning. This leads me to the conclusion that some of the proposed SCs
> fail because they do not apply to all user profiles.
>
>
>
> However, I also see merit in those same proposed SCs. It seems like we
> have two options.
>
> 1. Throw out all the “squishy” SCs
>
> 2. Create a “category” for those SCs that may not apply to all websites.
> This is not accurate, but for the sake of this proposal, it could be
> something like “public” and “professional” as an example.
>
>
>
> *Justification*
>
> Some websites do need to be accessible and usable by virtually everyone
> who can use a computer. For example, everyone should be able to check their
> bank balance or fill out online job applications (assuming they are
> qualified for those jobs). But for websites that target specific people or
> groups of people such as graduate students, doctors, or lawyers, it may be
> impossible for them to present their content and the functionality of their
> website such that every person who uses a computer can use and understand
> their websites. I’m concerned that we will be putting companies such as
> mine in a position to have to *choose between their business needs and
> accessibility standards*. To me, this harms our reputation as a
> standards-generating body.
>
>
>
> We already separate out accessibility guidelines, such as those targeting
> page authoring, testers, and so on.
>
>
>
> What do you think? I think we need to have a conversation about this and
> figure out a way to keep the some of the new SCs, even if they don’t apply
> to every website.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> *Kimberlee Dirks, JD*
>
> Accessibility Specialist, Legal UX
>
> Thomson Reuters
>
> kimberlee.dirks@tr.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>