Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

Hey Josh,

I appreciate the pragmatism. I really do.

With that said, I don't see a lot of issues with keeping on adding new
Success Criteria as time passes. Sure, it means more things to think about,
but if these additions are needed, then they are needed. I wouldn't want to
level down WCAG just because it's too complicated for designers and
developers to figure it out all the subtleties. Most of them will take what
they can anyway, and as far as I'm concerned, I don't expect anyone to be
perfect. I do expect everyone to at least do something, and if that means
that this particular group only handles a a handful of SC in their next
project and a few more after that, I'm totally cool with the idea. Baby
steps lead to progress. Drinking from the firehose and trying to nail it
all at once only leads to frustration and utter failures.

The pragmatist in me now looks at WCAG as an all-you-can-eat Chinese
buffet. Take what you want now. You can always come back later if you want
more. Pure, total compliance is a myth anyway. Nobody ever gets it
perfectly. Why not acknowledge that, and keep expanding the list of
considerations, so that new needs that arise get addressed. Not to mention
old needs already identified, but that we were unable to factor in to 2.1.

Most people were already feeling that WCAG 2.0 was asking too much with 38
SC at level A and AA anyway, so that doesn't change anything. Whether we
bring A = AA to 50 SC, or XX with WCAG 2.2 and beyond, some people will
complain, some people will appreciate. But ultimately, we provide real
people with a potentially better chance at a more equal online user
experience. New technologies introduce new challenges, and so does mobile.
We haven't even seriously started looking into AR, VR and al that good
stuff.

What kind of an accessibility standard would WCAG be if it settled before
any of those things can be addressed? If it didn't account for the new
barriers that these innovations will introduce? Vestibular disorders were
on nobody's radar back in 2001-2008 when 2.0 was created, and yet today,
it's very much a thing that we are barely starting to recognize at AAA with
SC 2.3.3. We need to keep on adding, because the barriers won't stop coming.



/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 9:04 AM Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> 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> 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
>