Re: WCAG 2.3 v 3.0 - was RE: XR Subgroup Update [April 27th 2021]

Wilco writes:

> I don't much like the option of another WCAG 2.3, but I much prefer it
over not seeing any updated recommendations for the next decade.

Exactly my point Wilco.

> The better option in my opinion is to break WCAG 3 up into multiple
recommendations that can be prioritized and published independently.

Indeed, and FWIW, that is exactly how the CSS WG handles their
specifications. (see: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts)

JF

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:13 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:

> My 2 cents,
>
> WCAG 3 is currently unbound. We haven't settled on if it is going to
> include usability testing, AT testing, a maturity model, reporting,
> sampling, metrics, user agent guidelines, authoring tool guidelines, etc.
> If we try to do all of that, on top of rewriting every single WCAG success
> criterion, and adding in new ones, I would be surprised if WCAG 3 could
> make it to recommendation before the end of the decade.
>
> I don't much like the option of another WCAG 2.3, but I much prefer it
> over not seeing any updated recommendations for the next decade. The better
> option in my opinion is to break WCAG 3 up into multiple recommendations
> that can be prioritized and published independently. I've pitched this to
> Silver multiple times, and I hope we get to discuss this in tomorrow's
> workshop.
>
> Just rewriting and modernizing all WCAG 2 success criteria is a daunting
> task. I agree with Katie that we should focus our efforts, but that goes
> for WCAG 3 efforts too. We can't build a good maturity model, while better
> addressing the COGA requirements, while solving the all-or-nothing problem,
> while adding XR to WCAG, while we're improving the usability, while
> we're... you get my drift.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:52 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would say once again, let's move on to 3.0, and focus our energy on
>> what is hard, but needed, in Accessibility.
>>
>> ** katie **
>>
>> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
>> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect*
>>
>>
>> *Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility **SME*
>> *, **Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover*
>>
>>
>> *W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility *
>>
>>
>> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
>> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>>
>> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
>> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Seneca, SC **|* *LinkedIn Profile
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>>
>> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
>> never forget how you made them feel.......
>>
>> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
>> dictate where we are going.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:11 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> Thank-you for this.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I don't recall mentioning anything about "reducing the amount of
>>> sound requiring captions" - rather, I pointed to an ongoing activity
>>> already buried within our midst that is working on a testable requirement
>>> for captions in the XR (Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality) space - for
>>> which, today, we have nothing. NOTHING!
>>>
>>> Will 'solving' that concern benefit all users? Nowhere near that, but it
>>> would at least be a first step forward in the right direction (IMHO).
>>> Getting a 'standard' that mandates captions in XR will benefit non-hearing
>>> users the most, whereas the ability to "...enlarged, change to
>>> high-contrast colors, or otherwise style..." caption text in the XR
>>> environment would likely be of more benefit to low-viz users (and others)
>>> but may be harder to technically achieve today - if at all. (ref: MAUR
>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/#auditory-visual-deaf-blind>)
>>> So then, does "Captions in XR" have to be all or nothing? Or is it "take
>>> what we can get today, and keep pushing for more"? (You can guess where I
>>> land there)
>>>
>>> Assuming that one or more testable requirement(s) emerges from that
>>> effort, I'm simply suggesting that waiting for WCAG 3 to drop to implement
>>> that/those requirement(s) may not actually be the most beneficial approach
>>> - I believe if we have a testable requirement today, we should publish it
>>> in a timely fashion and NOT have it hinged on the release of WCAG 3 (which,
>>> you note, could still be another 3-5 years out). [insert trope about
>>> perfect being the enemy of the good here]
>>>
>>> Jon, I'm not a huge fan of "living specs" when it comes to
>>> accessibility/WCAG (I continue to believe we still need firm snapshots to
>>> report against), but there *is* a reason why so much of the W3C has moved
>>> to that kind of model - tech changes faster than we can sometimes keep up
>>> with, so if something is "ready" and/or "stable" publish it and move
>>> forward (is all).
>>>
>>> > "There is also intersectional issues such as intersection of sensory
>>> disabilities like low vision and hard of hearing and sensory and cognitive
>>> disabilities – without personalization or a non-binary model these great
>>> recommendations likely will not get consensus..."
>>>
>>> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but at this point we have no idea
>>> whether or not some of what is being proposed as part of the "non-binary"
>>> model that would be *part* of WCAG 3 will get consensus either. This past
>>> week, I spent about a day and a half evaluating what we currently have as
>>> part of a sub-group activity (WCAG 3.0 Conformance Architecture Testing),
>>> and my results were far from encouraging (Example? We're currently not even
>>> sure if we're asking for 'clear words', 'common words', 'common clear
>>> words' or 'plain language' - all four terms are used, seemingly
>>> interchangeably, in the same requirement. And the current test suite
>>> resulted in the words '*fake*', '*site*' and '*accessibility*' -
>>> amongst others - being rejected as jargon or technical terms).
>>>
>>> There is already more opinion and subjectivity in the emergent work than
>>> there is in WCAG 2.x, which I will argue makes conformance *harder *to
>>> achieve, and *FAR harder to defend* from a legal compliance
>>> perspective: it will be your experts versus our experts in front of the
>>> judge. (And that presumes that the regulators accept WCAG 3 - which is what
>>> we HOPE will happen, but we have no guarantees that they will, outside of
>>> an expressed desire to do so at this time).
>>>
>>> JF
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 1:38 PM Jonathan Avila <
>>> jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John, this actually moves us into trickier situations that increase
>>>> the requirements on author or platforms with support for personalization.
>>>>   I’m not opposed to additional requirements – I’ve tried to get them
>>>> passed several times - but it’s been my experience that with the WCAG 2.x
>>>> binary model it’s been extremely difficult to get them approved and we
>>>> spend endless cycles trying to find someone that everyone will agree on in
>>>> the current binary model and it can take years or the SC is then watered
>>>> down or it’s dropped.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The requirement you mention reducing the amount of sound requiring
>>>> captions would have to be an option otherwise it would reduce accessiblity
>>>> for people who are visually impaired.  So these types of things very much
>>>> get into requiring personalization – which I know is a separate effort but
>>>> one that will be needed to ensure access by a wide range of users with
>>>> varying disabilities that often have needs that contradict the needs of
>>>> other groups.   There is also intersectional issues such as intersection of
>>>> sensory disabilities like low vision and hard of hearing and sensory and
>>>> cognitive disabilities – without personalization or a non-binary model
>>>> these great recommendations likely will not get consensus in WCAG 2.x and
>>>> will take up a lot of time moving the timeline of WCAG 3.0 from 3-5 to 5+
>>>> years.  Is getting 5 to 6 new A or AA criteria in WCAG 2.3 of value over
>>>> pushing WCAG 3.0 additional years down the road?  Maybe, maybe not?  If
>>>> folks have to choose between 2.3 and 3.0 and their employment mandates they
>>>> tackle 2.3 if it exists then that pulls their expertise away from 3.0
>>>> meaning 2 years from now they have to be brought back in to the 3.0 cycle
>>>> when their expertise was needed earlier.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:21 PM
>>>> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Fwd: XR Subgroup Update [April 27th 2021]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>>>> know the content is safe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After today's call, I wanted to share this which I suspect many have
>>>> not yet seen: an example of work already happening (somewhere within our
>>>> group, but how many of you knew this was happening?) - and this is just
>>>> related to XR captioning!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suzanne is already working on a "testable statement", and I'd really be
>>>> concerned if we didn't have a mechanism to add a new testable requirement
>>>> like this into our larger effort, for the sole reason that we've
>>>> collectively been working on other aspects of WCAG 3, so updating the
>>>> existing corpus of requirements is "off limits". I assert we should be
>>>> publishing regular updates of these types of tests in either or both WCAG
>>>> 'frameworks' - the key being "timely" updates. (I note as well that the
>>>> main reason we spun up the COGA, LV and Mobile TF's was because we let too
>>>> much time lapse between updates of our spec in the past. I believe we
>>>> should be trying to avoid that kind of bottleneck problem too.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not about NOT turning our efforts to WCAG 3 - we need to get
>>>> cracking in earnest there - but it's about staying focused on all of the
>>>> moving parts, of which scalable, score-able and repeatable testing methods
>>>> will always exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: *Michael Crabb (Staff)* <m.z.crabb@dundee.ac.uk>
>>>> Date: Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:28 AM
>>>> Subject: XR Subgroup Update [April 27th 2021]
>>>> To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Silver XR Subgroup is currently working asynchronously and is not
>>>> carrying out weekly meetings. This email is intended as a brief update on
>>>> work the group is carrying out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) @Suzanne Taylor has begun work on a method for the “Provides
>>>> customization of caption timing to support people with limited
>>>> manipulation, strength, or cognition” outcome. *Please find time to
>>>> give feedback on this if you can*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12o2S3XVltDgsMTjbHPPi0FMTJeoUAKqOrN8jpArkfFQ/edit#heading=h.ynbi2ooffkzm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) There are currently 9 open issues<
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20XR%20-%20Captions>
>>>> on the w3c/silver github repository that relate to XR/captions. Initial
>>>> responses have been created to 8 of these and are available below. Please
>>>> take time to review/comment on these before they are placed on GitHub on 29
>>>> th April.
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #259 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.4vci8db4rzyf
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #360 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.74t0jj1f9zsv
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #379 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.md2t9liawuub
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #415 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.puvqxs9jitu6
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #420 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.owhufmt71jiw
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #421 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.f42tzcuviq8
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #438 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.99dkihi2fd7k
>>>>
>>>>      *   Issue #474 -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit#heading=h.jeaggtnahirc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3)  Work is underway on organising our Working Document
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om7h7HE-9sIPeBRmJrBSESQWsMGH8PysiWCpAUWXBUQ/edit>
>>>> in order to provide clarity for short/medium term subgroup plans.
>>>>
>>>>      *   Our current goal is to finish initial drafts for guidelines
>>>> relating to subtitling in XR
>>>>
>>>>      *   We need to start thinking about caption accuracy and if this
>>>> is something that should be included for WCAG3
>>>>
>>>>         *   Mike to explore methods that have been used to carry this
>>>> out previously
>>>>
>>>>      *   If you would like to participate then please reach out or
>>>> visit the working document
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Crabb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>>>>
>>>> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>>>> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>>>
>>> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>>> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>>>
>>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules
>
>
>

-- 
*John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"