RE: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria

Andrew,

I’ll try to clarify what I meant a bit.  Formal accessibility support documentation is not a required (or optional) part of a conformance claim, but at the same time you cannot claim conformance without using technologies in accessibility supported ways per conformance requirement 5.1.4<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc4>.  This means that the techniques used must be tested with AT and browsers.  I’m sure you know all that, but I’m just repeating to show my simple thought process.  It leads me to think: If we aren’t willing to show our work on that, who is?

I want to make sure we have clear checks on:

1.       Each technique we add to meet a 2.1 criteria is shown in documentation to be accessibility supported where applicable

2.       The SC are as technology-independent as we might have thought when putting them in the draft
If those checks are covered elsewhere, then I agree we may not need the exit criterion for it.  Either way, I agree the level at which it was documented for 2.0 is not needed and a simplified approach can be taken.

Steve

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:51 PM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria

Steve,
I don’t think that I would say that the accessibility support documentation is tied to techniques. In HTML we pointed to techniques frequently, and we should have techniques that represent the full spectrum of ways that a technology is supported by assistive technologies, but it isn’t required for anyone to make a WCAG 2.1 conformance claim. The support documentation is useful for authors to be able to refer to if they are trying to see what works across different platforms, but as we also see from the documentation it gets out of date and people probably aren’t using it on any kind of regular basis.

I think that it would be great to have accessibility support documentation for technologies like HTML5 as there are new elements that didn’t exist with HTML 4.01, but I don’t think that this impact WCAG 2.1 SC as much as it does WCAG 2.0 SC and as a result I think that this shouldn’t be part of the official exit criteria.

For Steve or anyone who feels that we do need this, can you articulate what the scenario might be where there is a negative outcome caused by not having it?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

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


From: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:32
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FWCAG21_impl%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=AttqF7zjXcmp%2BQKr5E8UFh3ajao%2BrNXd%2F3R4ECdnAgI%3D&reserved=0> 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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2FWCAG20%2Fimplementation-report%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=SRRuKZLLTgq3rtdylso4nFmjFYIXWJ0Uw3kObOioYvo%3D&reserved=0>

Proposed exit criteria:

  1.  At least 5 conforming Web sites 1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=N3mbVOZFXC72ujK%2FArmJg8qt3q%2BitEzTkpTHh2EMrtY%3D&reserved=0> are available, of which

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

  1.  At least two implementations 2<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote2&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=8fZU3e7QJVbixs%2BgjGigFr3RmKpKzLZCr5di170j%2BEk%3D&reserved=0> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote3&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=NYSFSVzRvgNj77I1qYrzWsj2vtzZfS7KJqQtGtCXAOY%3D&reserved=0> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2FWCAG20%2FWD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=BnfrQW9ro357ALDKJwM3l9F31u1LHUyciI07cxFvQMU%3D&reserved=0> 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2FWCAG20%2Fimplementation-report%2Fhtml-uses1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=8ozMPwDgJuw0Qqp8j13XpSMSU66YV8ogbN6ZPsknvj0%3D&reserved=0>) 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&sdata=WiQRDsgtMjC%2Bjhb%2BrRZxjzKEjkj6ETfuautK10xCmUQ%3D&reserved=0>