W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

From: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:03:23 +0000
Message-ID: <5C70012B.6090609@interaccess.ie>
To: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
CC: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I hear that Denis and good points a la moving with the times, and 
industry requirements. For some context - I've had some interesting 
experiences working in government lately, and my principle issues with 
continuing down the 2.x route is the idea of adding more and more 
'things' for devs/designers/authors to do. More requirements, more SCs 
etc. Combining that with the current rigid conformance model, which I 
would dearly like to see changed, I think may make the a11y project much 
more difficult and cumbersome for those who aim to conform - especially 
for the 'cant cook/won't cook' section.

Fine if you have a11y knowledge/expertise and want to do the right 
thing, but very hard if you just don't have that knowledge, and want to 
do the right thing. So adding more ever more requirements to me seems 
counter productive. We are still telling our clients about the benefits 
of headings, and there is a still a dearth of them.

Where you are a public sector body or receive gov funding and these 
requirements become 'too much' - then some may choose to close down 
their website, rather than face legal penalties. So I'd like a model 
that supports those who are doing their best, and may not have either 
big bucks or a11y knowledge on tap - without loading lots of extra SCs.

I could live with a 2.2, 2.3 etc, with a different conformance model - 
which factors in 'extra' efforts such as user needs gathering/ 
involvement, or user testing that was undertaken, or where an 
organisation can demonstrate they are at least aware of diverse user 
needs and may be making other accommodations. On reflection, I guess my 
primary issue is with the absolutist nature of the current conformance 
model - rather than with 2.x or Silver per se.



Denis Boudreau wrote:
> Hello,
> I, for one, am not clear what we're voting on anymore. +1 or -1. All I 
> know from my standpoint is that the world needs improvements to WCAG 
> 2.x while Silver slowly builds itself up. The more I teach WCAG 2.1 to 
> people, the more I see them opening their minds about what they can 
> imagine could also become part of WCAG 2.x. That wasn't the case 
> before. People were looking at WCAG 2.0 as these immutable rules that 
> had to follow. With WCAG 2.1, some are strarting to understand that 
> they cold maybe influence the outcome. There's momentum there.
> People are barely starting to consider the possibility that there 
> could be additions to WCAG. That maybe even their ideas could be 
> considered - if they have the stamina to go through that process. 
> Stopping at WCAG 2.1 while the W3C retreats to its ivory tower to 
> create Silver (a very elite task if you ask me), is not what the world 
> needs. That work on Silver is supremely important, but the W3C has an 
> opportunity to keep in touch with the web industry with more frequent 
> updates through WCAG 2.x, and I think we really keep that in mind.
> I think the world actually needs a WCAG 2.2. It will likely take years 
> to come up with a stable version of Sliver, and I wouldn't be 
> surprised if it actually took a lot more years than we envision. By 
> wanting to make it more about the user experience - which I 
> wholeheartedly applaud - we are also making it much more difficult to 
> test in a quantitative, empirical and measurable way.  Nailing that 
> piece alone I'm sure will take a long time. In the meantime, the web 
> keeps involving, and so should WCAG 2.x.
> This WG could still keep adding to the existing SC while Silver finds 
> its foundations, and each new SC addition to WCAG 2.x could be an 
> inspiration for what could naturally emerge as part of Silver, once we 
> get to defining that. I understand that it's hard to commit to both, 
> but in the name of the greater good for accessibility, maybe we just 
> need to pick our battles and choose which activity we're individually 
> going to contribute to the most.
> /Denis
> *Denis Boudreau, CPWA* | Principal Accessibility SME & Training Lead 
> | 514-730-9168
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> Deque.com <http://www.deque.com>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:54 AM Joshue O Connor - InterAccess 
> <josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>> wrote:
>     Alastair Campbell wrote:
>>     [....]
>>     Ironically a -1 to the CFC is saying we shouldn’t do a 2.2. I
>>     think we’ll have to refine the question.
>     -1 to a WCAG 2.2. I don't think its what the world needs.
>     Happy to discuss.
>>     -Alastair
>>     1] https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3856-the-big-rewrite-revisited
>     -- 
>     Joshue O Connor
>     Director | InterAccess.ie

Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 14:04:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:29 UTC