Re: Trying to be clear - was making the draft for CR accurate

​​
Lisa wrote:

> Unless we know we have done our mandate I do not see why anything will
improve for 2.1 or silver.


Lisa, I am not sure why you or others continue to think that this effort is
an "all or nothing" activity.

You seem to imply that we'll go, lickety-split, from WCAG 2.1 to Silver,
despite the fact that numerous people in this Working Group are fairly
certain that we'll see a 2.2 before we see Silver (and honestly, I
personally believe we'll also see a 2.3, maybe even a 2.4) - *but most
importantly*, we're establishing a new paradigm, a publishing *cycle*, that
will see updated SC being published roughly every 18 months at the W3C.
WCAG 2.1 isn't the finished product, it's just a stop along the way, and
the next stop is coming in 18 months (after 2.1 is published). We're
publishing what's ready now, so that it can be taken up by developers NOW,
and then we immediately return to the pile of SC that we didn't finish, and
get the next batch ready - rinse and repeat every 18 months until we're
"finished" (and does anybody truly believe we'll ever be "finished"?)

Back in the bad old days, when the perception was of accessibility experts
sitting around stroking their beards
<https://alistapart.com/article/tohellwithwcag2> and striving for
perfection at every turn, it took years - YEARS! - for change, yet
seemingly every 6 months there were fundamental changes and additions to
the ecosystem we're trying to make accessible, not just for users of screen
readers, but for all users.

This is and was untenable, as in that instance we *WERE* failing our
mandate, because our Guidance and Technical standards were becoming
increasingly out-of-date. (And to be crystal clear, we write
Technical Standards and Guidance, not legislation, and we should NOT be
unduly influenced by those legislative requirements - if the US Government
wants to take 18 years to update their Section 508 legislation, or delay
adding web accessibility requirements to the ADA, then that is unfortunate
for those impacted users living in the USA, but this is the World Wide Web,
not the USA Web. That slow and steady legislative process is designed to
benefit lobbyists and large companies and not Persons With Disabilities
IMHO)

We've spent close to 2 years working on a large batch of new Success
Criteria. Over that period of time, some of the proposals have not made the
same amount of progress as others. You seem to suggest that somehow, with
the release of 2.1, those SC proposals that did not make this round of
publishing will be jettisoned, or otherwise discarded - that work on those
proposals will stop dead in their tracks, and WCAG 2.1 will be the next
8+years Standard at the W3C.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE!


> Maybe it is just our timelines focus or our processes


Perhaps, but those are the rules by which we operate at the W3C - a
member-funded consortium that is technology driven. There have been many
changes to W3C process, changes mandated by the membership, and individuals
here can rail on about how that's "wrong", but that's the W3C way today,
and we either accept it or leave the W3C (and leaving the W3C really isn't
an option for many of us - certainly not myself). Their ball field, their
ball, their rules - simple. Additionally, we have no proof to suggest that
this "Agile-like" standards development process is failing anyone at the
W3C, only that some members struggle with the new way the W3C wants to
operate.


> The first step in addressing a problem is knowing that you have one.


Fair enough, and I respectfully suggest that one of those problems is an
unrealistic expectation that WCAG 2.1 was going to solve all problems for
all COGA users in WCAG 2.1.

I'm not sure how or why that came to be, but it is my impression that this
is the understanding that you (and perhaps others) have brought to the
table. To suggest that the COGA TF have made *no progress* *is simply false*.
To say that in this publishing cycle COGA wished that more SC had made the
grade - that's fair - and perhaps we need to look at how to ensure more
effort and attention is applied on those SC that missed this round, with a
goal of getting more published in 2.2.

But this isn't a binary, all-or-nothing discussion, we're progressing
towards an ideal and goal, and each step forward is just that - a step
forward. It doesn't mean that the journey is over after one step, and
suggesting or expecting that the first step would cover a mile's worth of
work is unrealistic, be it to address the needs of people with Cognition or
Learning Issues, or users with Low Vision, or users who are _______.

The editorial language you've highlighted states:

*Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range
of people with disabilities*


It doesn't say all, it doesn't make a claim to be complete or address all
use-cases... no it simply states that following these guidelines will make
the content accessible to more (a wider range of) users than if you do not
follow the guidelines.

This is fundamentally a discussion about whether the glass is half-empty or
half-full. Nobody is suggesting that there isn't part of the glass that has
nothing in it, simply that many of us choose to see it as half-full, and
we're working towards filling it more in WCAG 2.2, WCAG 2.3, and beyond.

It is my hope that members of COGA could see it that way too.

JF



On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:42 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew.
>
> I hope i is OK if I am clear as I can be.
>
>  I understood that our mandate in 2.1 was to address cognitive, low vision
> and mobile. So were as this language was reasonable at the begining,  it
> became less and less accurate as the draft developed. (Until the last few
> weeks, it looked like  there would be at least some
> reasonable accommodation for people with cognitive disabilities in 2.1. )
>
> My opinion is that following our current draft does not provide minimal
> accommodation for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. I can
> not speak for the task force but for myself, I do not believe that anyone
> who wants to make content usable for people with learning and cognitive
> disabilities should be looking at these specifications.   I would not be
> surprised if ADA law suits against WCAG compliant sites would win.
>
> The first step in addressing a problem is knowing that you have one.
> Unless we know we have done our mandate I do not see why anything will
> improve for 2.1 or silver.
>
> I think our credibility is at risk if we say we do things we do not do,
> and if we keep this language we will simply fail CR. I am ok working on it
> after we go to CR but I do not think this is editorial. We need to change
> the scope of the specification to fit what we have done. Maybe Michael can
> let us know if changing the scope is editorial.
>
> All that being said I know a lot of people on this list have made a huge
> effort, and I do not want to minimise that. Maybe it is just our timelines
> focus or our processes but we have not done what we set out to do.
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:34:34 +0200 *Andrew
> Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpat@adobe.com>>* wrote ----
>
> Lisa,
>
>
>
> Thanks for raising this on the list. I have a few thoughts on this that I
> think are worth considering.
>
>
>
> This language has been part of WCAG since WCAG 2.0, this is not new
> language in the abstract.
>
>
>
> I do not believe that WCAG 2.0 fully addresses accessibility concerns for
> any group of users with disabilities, including people that with cognitive
> disabilities, and the same is true for WCAG 2.1.
>
>
>
> I am concerned that we aren’t possibly setting up the expectation that
> WCAG 2.1 is somehow taking steps backwards in accessibility. If the
> language changes to say “begins to address learning disabilities and
> cognitive limitations at conformance level AAA” it may lead people to that
> conclusion, and indicate that there is nothing in the AA success criteria
> that benefits this group of users. Does the COGA TF believe that there is
> nothing at all in WCAG 2.0 that provides benefits?
>
>
>
> The text that is proposed to be changed is editorial. We could change it
> now, but to be clear, we can also change it during the CR period.
>
>
>
> What I would like to propose is that the Working Group have a discussion
> about how this text could be changed when we have more than two hours to
> make that change. Since this was just discussed on the COGA call this
> morning (https://www.w3.org/2018/01/25-coga-minutes.html) it is
> definitely a late-arriving change request, and one that can be addressed
> during CR. Can we commit to having the Working Group have a collective
> discussion about this language and arrive at consensus language early in
> the CR period?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *"lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 10:44
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *making the draft for CR accurate
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 10:43
>
>
>
> I think the draft for CR has to change the introduction:
>
>
>
> from
>
>
>
> *Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range
> of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness
> and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited
> movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these.
> These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops,
> tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often
> make your Web content more usable to users in general.*
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> * Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range
> of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness
> and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity,
> and combinations of these. These guidelines address accessibility of web
> content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices and begins  to  **address
> learning** disabilities and cognitive limitations at conformance level
> AAA, *
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure if consider low vision to be addressed or "begins to
> addressed"
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fil.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Flisaseeman%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C5e0aa0123fd84199723e08d5640a76a7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524918465112191&sdata=dNUnFC87oYq%2BSeakcaAAxu0QxfEjE%2BCdodGYVTmaZLo%3D&reserved=0>,
> Twitter
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSeemanLisa&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C5e0aa0123fd84199723e08d5640a76a7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636524918465112191&sdata=YbFr1AxwaSfG%2BqrXmKpZkXWjItdVB0zcSorhLmDXom4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion