W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2020

RE: Moving Silver Requirements to note

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:29:21 +0000
To: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
CC: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB8PR09MB33392D5B0E8661E26FD3A108B9300@DB8PR09MB3339.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Lisa,

As Janina and the survey mentioned, it is a living document until the CR stage. This CFC is about whether we are happy to move it to a Note instead of having it as a “Draft Community Group Report”.

We can change the content if the group agrees to do so, but that is not the focus of this CFC.

On the topic you raised, (and taking chair hat off)…

My understanding is that the user-requirement aspect is within the scope section:
“Disability Needs: An improved measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.”

The whole document is about Silver requirements, so the scope is just as relevant as the section named “requirements”.

In section 4, which is the ‘how’ section, the coverage aspect is addressed by the “Multiple ways to measure” requirement. “other ways of measuring … can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included”

That is the practical way that the guidelines can cover more requirements, and it is a thing that we can hold the eventual spec to: Did it provide more ways of measuring accessibility?

If there is something about how the guidelines should work that is not covered in the requirements, that would be useful to raise for that section. What would that be?

Also, adding something about the level of effort (e.g. “best of our ability”) doesn’t make it a requirement of the final standard. Of course we will try, but whether it is successful depends on how it is structured and what requirements it meets. That is the focus of the document.

Kind regards,


From: Lisa Seeman

I apologize for doing this, and I know the silver taskforce is trying hard,  but I can not agree with the silver requirements

My concern is that the requirements (in section 4) do not include, or even imply, that all user needs will be addressed to the best of our ability.

 It does not include that following these requirements will enabled content to be as accessible as possible for all people with disabilities. The requirement section does not address the imbalance of user needs in the current guidelines, across the different disability groups.  (Note these are implied in the scope but not in the requirements. It must be in the actual requirements)

Again the focus of the requirements is on measurability,   adoption into law,etc. But if addressing the user needs are not a requirement, what is the point?

Keep well, and thanks again for the huge effort in creating this work

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:16 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Call For Consensus — ends Monday, October 5th at 12 (midday) Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed moving the Silver Requirements to a group note, recently with this survey:

(Which includes links to the previous survey and minutes.)

Last call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-ag-minutes.html#item09

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Kind regards,



@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2020 00:29:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:38 UTC