Re: Idea for additional Level A criteria

Interesting proposal Bruce - I'd support this.

JF

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 9:33 AM Bruce Bailey <Bailey@access-board.gov>
wrote:

> I don’t disagree with any of the discussion points below.  I do want to
> offer the idea that WCAG 2.3 could add 5 or 6 single A SC, and they might
> not even be all that hard to write!
>
>
>
> IHMO there is a case to made that the biggest defect with 2.0 is that
> 1.3.1 Info and Relationships is (1) too much of “kitchen sink”, and (2) the
> requirements for meeting 1.3.1 are not as explicit as perhaps they could be.
>
>
>
> I suggest we consider adding SC *under* 1.3.1.
>
>
>
> Just for example, to illustrate what I think we could discuss:
>
>
>
>    - 1.3.1.1 Data in Rows:  The header for tabular data row is
>    programmatically determinable.
>    - 1.3.1.2 Data in columns:  The header for tabular data in a column is
>    programmatically determinable.
>    - 1.3.1.3 Complex Tables:  For tabular data table with more than one
>    header, headers are programmatically determinable.
>    - 1.3.1.4 Hierarchical Relationships:  Hierarchical (parent-child)
>    relationships are programmatically determinable.
>
>
>
> I started with these four from https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#502.3.1
> and there is more (e.g., forms) to mined from Understanding
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/info-and-relationships.html>.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:55 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: WCAG 2.3 v 3.0 - was RE: XR Subgroup Update [April 27th
> 2021]
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> (Chair hat off), two points I find compelling from JonA:
>
>
>
> > 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 ...  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?
>
>
>
> To add to that point:
>
> The 2.x structure is set, and it is getting harder and harder to get new
> SCs in.
>
> In WCAG 2.1 we started with over 60 SCs, and 17 were incorporated.
>
> In 2.2 we are looking at 9 (1 of which is a AAA variation).
>
>
>
> On that trajectory, a 2.3 would likely have 4 new criteria unless we found
> new requirements that were *easy* to translate to criteria. (In which
> case, where have they been?)
>
>
>
> Tested & scoring is more flexible in WCAG 3.0 so it could be *quicker* to
> get new requirements into 3.0 than 2.3, even with the longer timeline
> assumed for 3.0.
>
>
>
> The new requirements included in 3.0 could also be of more use to people
> with disabilities if they can use different testing methods, and/or better
> account for task and context. That’s an important quality metric I think we
> sometimes gloss over.
>
>
>
> Even for a fresh requirement that we haven’t considered before, creating a
> WCAG 3.0 guideline *and* WCAG 2.3 criterion is double the work of just
> doing one. Putting them into different structures requires you to create it
> separately for each, even if you start with a good requirement and
> appropriate ACT tests.
>
>
>
>
>
> >  if [WCAG 2.3] 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.
>
>
>
> Indeed, now that we are at the point where parallel working can happen on
> 3.0, time spent on 2.3 would likely add to the 3.0 timeline. That does
> depend on what members want to work on, but it is a factor.
>
>
>
> Of the ~27 people on the call today I think 3 raised their hand for
> working on 2.3 criteria. If anyone else is interested in that please do us
> know at group-ag-chairs@w3.org
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*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"