RE: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria

My 2 cents on accessibility support documentation…

Since the documentation is largely tied to techniques, the formal exit criteria ought to include accessibility support documentation for new techniques added to meet the new 2.1 criteria.  I don’t think we can claim conformance per requirement #1 without this.

Whether or not it’s a formal exit criterion or not, I think we ought to review the 2.0 report and document what has changed at lower priority.  A simple plan of attack might be:

1.       Consider full documentation support for new popular AT not documented in 2.0

2.       A quick skim of techniques documented as supported to ensure no major changes

3.       Comprehensive review of techniques marked as not supported or partially supported, which would lead to conclusions that either support has been added or new better techniques should be created.

Steve

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:26 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria

AGWG’ers,

On the call today and from the survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results we seemed to gather some support for adopting a modified version of the WCAG 2.0 CR Exit Criteria.

The WCAG 2.0 criteria are here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/


Proposed exit criteria:

  1.  At least 5 conforming Web sites 1<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote1> are available, of which

     *   At least four conform at level AA,
     *   At least one conforms at level AAA;

  1.  At least two implementations 2<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote2> exist for each success criterion added in WCAG 2.1 (Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0 do not need new implementations);
  2.  Accessibility support documentation 3<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote3> is available for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating system/user agent/assistive technology combinations);
  3.  All sufficient techniques listed in Understanding WCAG 2.0<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/> at the end of the Candidate Recommendation period contain test procedures;
  4.  The Working Group has responded formally to all issues raised against this document related to any implementation efforts during the Candidate Recommendation period.

Changes from WCAG 2.0:
#1: changed from 10 sites, with 4 at A, 4 at AA, and 2 at AAA
#2: removed
#3: now #2, included mention of only getting implementations for new SC
#4: now #3. This was debated and no consensus was arrived at on the call. More on this below.
#5: now #4, unchanged
#6: now #5, unchanged.

The accessibility support documentation item had different opinions. Some had opinions that we needed to make sure that this was addressed for the new success criteria, but others felt that this was already largely covered by the work done in WCAG 2.0.  It is worth noting that the documentation (e.g. https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/html-uses1) is focused on the accessibility support for aspects of technologies that exists on different OS/UA/AT combinations, and it is generally distinct from the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria requirements.

The Working Group needs to decide whether it will perform additional evaluations to document the accessibility support for newer technologies, such as HTML5, or if the original work suffices for the purpose.

Thoughts on accessibility support documentation?

Thoughts on anything else about this?


Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk