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

Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

From: Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:03:11 +0000
To: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4e66a555-7811-8900-9225-9aa2750bfa1d@tetralogical.com>
+1 Denis.


On 22/02/2019 14:28, Denis Boudreau wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <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
> 

-- 
Director @TetraLogical
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 15:03:43 UTC

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