Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

Interesting replies all, appreciated. I'm still concerned about over 
cooking the goose and adding layer upon
layer of stuff for devs to do in all 2.x updates, within a rigid 
conformance model.
Outside the a11y expert bubble, ordinary devs can really struggle with 
this stuff.

More so when there are legal implications. So my money is still on a 
reworked set up uber SC a la Silver/WCAG 3.0 with
a new conformance model.

Thanks

Josh

Abma, J.D. (Jake) wrote:
>
> +1 for this answer too
>
> Also think we’ll end up with at least as much guidelines in Silver (if 
> not more) and even more methods to choose from to comply with a Guideline.
>
> *From:*Denis Boudreau [mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com]
> *Sent:* vrijdag 22 februari 2019 15:28
> *To:* 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>
> *Subject:* 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 <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 *
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ATTENTION:
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie