Re: Low Vision TF on 2.2 and Silver

Hi Shawn and Jim

Perhaps it would be good to provide some context given that I was quoted.
I've learned over the years that minutes can be a precarious way to follow
a WCAG conversation.

   - I really want us to continue to provide and seek solutions for low
   vision issues in future versions of the guidelines including 2.2. and
   SIlver.
   - In WCAG 2.0 I was the author of 1.4.8 which I fought hard to get into
   WCAG 2.0 Level AA but it was downvoted to AAA by the group for various
   reasons.
   - I'm not keen on creating a hierarchy of disabilities in our
   requirements documents where we say we are going to emphasize one
   disability over another.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

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 Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:46 AM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi AG WG participants,
>
> As Jim has shared, the Low Vision Task Force (TF) is not directly
> proposing any new WCAG 2.2 success criteria. Individual participants may
> work on SCs. The TF will review and support new SCs. The TF will instead
> focus on supplemental guidance (best practices) related to low vision
> accessibility. We expect that will be integrated with cognitive and mobile
> guidance in the future.
>
> We wanted to clarify some information from recent minutes:
> https://www.w3.org/2019/04/23-ag-minutes.html#item02
>
> "David: As a recap, because the Low Vision Task Force is not pursuing any
> additional Success Criteria in WCAG 2.2, and because much of the gap in
> coverage for low vision users was addressed by WCAG 2.1..."
>
> -1 to: "much of the gap in coverage for low vision users was addressed by
> WCAG 2.1"
>
> "Alastair: My impression was that the low vision task force was interested
> in looking farther ahead than WCAG 2.2 to continue to address user needs."
>
> +1 to: "interested in looking farther ahead than WCAG 2.2 to continue to
> address user needs"
>
>
> The perspective of many participants in the Low Vision Task Force (TF) is:
>
> * More user needs were covered in WCAG 2.1. The TF is pleased with that
> overall. However, the SCs are far from optimum. WCAG 2 SCs have significant
> limitations[1]. The exceptions and the wording mean that some 2.1 SCs: do
> not address user needs sufficiently; are not clear that they address user
> needs. For example, see [2]
>
> * Supplemental guidance lets us provide clear guidance without the
> limitations of WCAG SCs. It also informs Silver.
>
> * Several low vision user needs are related to user agent support, and
> wouldn't fit in WCAG 2.2 either. The TF is optimistic they will be
> addressed well in Silver.
>
> This is the motivation for the TF focusing work on supplemental guidance
> and Silver, rather than WCAG 2.2. (The TF *does* intend to support work on
> 2.2, just not focus on it.)
>
> Let us know if we can provide additional information.
>
> Best,
> ~Shawn Henry & Jim Allan for Low Vision Task Force
>
>
> [1] be testable, apply to all content and technologies, etc.
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements
>
> [2] One example: Users need to be able to change font family and spacing (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/#font ,
> https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/#spacing). 1.4.12 Text Spacing is
> limited to "content implemented using markup languages that support the
> following text style properties" and it doesn't mention changing font
> family. (even though the SC is intended to include users changing font
> family, and it is mentioned in the Understanding doc)
>
>
> --
> <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>
>
>