Re: Role of WCAG guidance (was a CFC response)

Melanie wrote:

> the intent of the AGWG is that WCAG 2.2 be taken up by regulatory bodies
and referenced by legal decisions (as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 already are) and be
submitted to ISO, as quickly as possible.


Uhm, actually, I think you are somewhat mistaken here: it is not the AGWG's
*intent*, because the W3C does not have that ability.

Adoption of the WCAG standard, at any level, is done by elected legislators
in different countries/territories around the planet, not the W3C. (And as
Makoto has often reminded us, in Japan the
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/japan/>JIS X 8341 standard
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/japan/> - based on the ISO version of WCAG
2.0 - remains a voluntary standard. I am unaware of the ISO updating their
'version' either: ISO/IEC Guide 71:2014(en)
<https://www.iso.org/standard/57385.html#:~:text=ISO%2FIEC%20Guide%2071:2014%20provides%20guidance%20to%20standards%20developers,built%20environments)%20used%20by%20people.>
still references WCAG 2.0 - although Makoto will probably know more about
the current status than I do)

Might I suggest instead that it is the AGWG's **hope** that regulatory
bodies will keep-up with and adopt our improvements to the WCAG standard,
be it in the 2.x vein or the 3.x vein. But, it is also important to
remember that Section 508 requirements today DO NOT require any of the
newer WCAG 2.1 SC, and we have zero evidence that this will change for
WCAG 2.2, so it is evident today that not all legislators will be as quick
to adopt newer SC such as this. And sadly, the DOJ announcement earlier
this summer was vague in its intent: The DOJ’s new rule would most likely
target WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/>, but I've
not found anything more definitive than that online (and I looked - hard).

> It is another thing to require them to also *overcome the accessibility
deficits of a user agent.*


Do you have an example of "unstyled" content where this requirement still
fails? I've never seen one myself, and honestly I rarely if ever see an
unstyled web page in 2022: our industry has just progressed to that point.
Between using CSS "reset" pages that still remove native focus indicators,
to design considerations related to colors and color palettes, this will
almost always be a design choice (and design solution), so this is more of
a "qualifying" SC than anything else.

As such, I fail to see how this creates an undue burden on the content
creators, and deploying a phrase often used at Deque, this is a "shifting
left" SC - we're making it clear what the expectations are and will-be
going forward. At best, this SC *MAY* break "backward compatibility", but I
would argue that getting a "stick in the ground" late is better than never
getting the stick into the ground. We know this is a problem, and retaining
the status quo at this time helps no-one.

Finally, if some legislative bodies still feel this SC is too onerous, they
can do as others have in the past and exempt or remove specific SC
<https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601&section=html#appB>
from the legally required Success Criteria for that specific
territory/country.

And so, while I do recognize your concerns, I personally do not think they
rise to the level of blocking this SC from moving forward.

JF

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:00 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Melanie,
>
> You wrote:
>
> The AGWG charter only gives it the ability to provide normative guidance
> to web content authors. That limitation does not mean that the AGWG should
> give content authors the responsibility to fix what is clearly a deficit of
> another “leg” nor absolve users from using assistive technologies that are
> currently available to enhance focus indicators.  This SC provides
> relevant guidance for when content authors choose to change the default
> focus indicator, but it should not require content authors to change it if
> they don’t choose to.
>
>
>
> WCAG defines criteria that need to be met by web pages and applications,
> and authors need to ensure that these are met. In some cases there is an
> easy way (e.g., use default browser controls, rely on the default focus
> indicator, etc) but even with WCAG 2.0 there was some potential overlap.
> The author needs to make sure that the SC are met even if the browser
> doesn’t do its job. If a browser implemented a default slider component
> that wasn’t keyboard accessible, do you feel that an author would be able
> to rely on that control (I don’t)? The point of Focus Appearance is in part
> to make up for insufficient focus indicators on some browsers. End-users
> need a sufficient focus and if the browsers don’t provide it, and the
> authors _*can*_ (there is an exception for when they can’t) then the
> authors need to. My hope is that this will result in authors complaining to
> the browsers and getting improvements to the default focus indicator, which
> will reduce the overall level of effort on authors.
>
>
>
> Is this really a difficult ask for authors to take responsibility for? I’m
> not sure what the underlying concern is – can you calarify?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Director, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com>
> *Date: *Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:57 PM
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Subject: *Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:56 PM
>
>
>
> *EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.*
>
>
>
> -1 (please note: this Objection is submitted as an individual member of
> the AGWG, not in my role as an AC representative).
>
>
>
> With respect to SC 2.4.11 Focus Appearance:
>
>
>
> Focus indicators are a function of the browser – a user agent. Without a
> full exception for browser default focus indicators this SC holds Content
> Authors responsible to overcome the deficits of User Agents. This is new
> territory for WCAG and is counter to the W3C’s own WAI discussion on how
> Accessibility has multiple essential components that interrelate at
> Essential Components of Web Accessibility [1]. The components described can
> be thought of as a “three-legged stool”:
>
>    - Users
>    - User Agents: browsers, media players, assistive technologies, and
>    other “user agents”
>    - Content Authors: designers, content contributors, developers,
>    authoring tools
>
> It’s one thing to require Content Authors to *make what they author
> accessible* to certain standards. It is another thing to require them to
> also *overcome the accessibility deficits of a user agent.*
>
>
>
> The AGWG charter only gives it the ability to provide normative guidance
> to web content authors. That limitation does not mean that the AGWG should
> give content authors the responsibility to fix what is clearly a deficit of
> another “leg” nor absolve users from using assistive technologies that are
> currently available to enhance focus indicators.  This SC provides
> relevant guidance for when content authors choose to change the default
> focus indicator, but it should not require content authors to change it if
> they don’t choose to.
>
>
>
> The W3C, however, has a larger view than just web content authors. For
> example, part of the W3C’s Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working
> Group’s mission is “coordination of harmonized accessibility strategies
> within W3C” [2]. Instead of (mis)placing the responsibility for browser
> focus indicator visibility on web content authors, perhaps a group such as
> the APA or the Accessibility Features Community Group [3] could work with
> browser manufacturers (all major browser manufacturers are W3C members) to
> improve their support for people with disabilities.
>
>
>
> The reason this (placement of responsibility for focus indicators) really
> matters is that the intent of the AGWG is that WCAG 2.2 be taken up by
> regulatory bodies and referenced by legal decisions (as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
> already are) and be submitted to ISO, as quickly as possible. This makes
> WCAG de facto more than a voluntary standard. Making it a requirement to
> modify default focus indicators all but guarantees that non-technically
> inclined, small-to-medium website owners around the globe will be put at
> regulatory or legal risk of non-conformance for something they didn’t or
> can’t change with their tools.
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2Ffundamentals%2Fcomponents%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RW8B226j%2FVd3qLq49iIarOYuHc9i5Dqe9xnq8%2BmF6TU%3D&reserved=0>
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FAPA%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1gOEJps%2Flaz2iw%2BiU8sAz%2BaC99S4L6Rt9QyVgGMciAY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> [3] https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/a11yfeat
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fgroups%2Fcg%2Fa11yfeat&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=STSuEF7yW%2BlDTdNwU5D7GrFuN6S2ahbaLyC069Waw7o%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS | *Director, Services Methodology
> | 540-848-5220
>
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> www.deque.com
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deque.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LAa1YQzH0%2B1E27BIeM%2FehYoWrqkYiR%2BqN44WexU0bgI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:31 PM Kersey, Ian (TR Product) <
> Ian.Kersey@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
>
> 0
>
> Thomson Reuters continues to object to the focus appearance SC despite
> recent modifications.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
> *Ian Kersey*
>
> Senior Accessibility Specialist
>
> Pronouns: he/him/his
>
>
>
> *Thomson Reuters*
>
>
>
> Ian.Kersey@thomsonreuters.com
>
>
>
> thomsonreuters.com
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthomsonreuters.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7TA%2F%2FaZuHrtj7QhHcB1S9xfNPLEs4vkIC%2BW%2FrUYH%2Fwc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> facebook.com/thomsonreuters
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2Fthomsonreuters&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FDcXGOyvHsEdnlE0i91vZHExqnVRXaLNUf%2BstuGkC78%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/thomsonreuters
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fthomsonreuters&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612080827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DOCqEwharqvVkFqz9lxKzP5Vrq4UKqAEXAgnbzEI9O0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> linkd.in/thomson_reuters
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkd.in%2Fthomson_reuters&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612237070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3R46P%2B847mNUIkWuLlF2f72TVkgnr95A0QjJLMQti5c%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
> *From:* Bossley, Peter (TR Product) <Peter.Bossley@thomsonreuters.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 7:51 AM
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
>
>
>
> 0
>
> Thomson Reuters continues to object to the focus appearance SC despite
> recent modifications.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2022 1:19 PM
> *To:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> *External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Call for Consensus – ends Tuesday August 30th at 2pm Boston time (a
> shorter time as this is take 2).
>
>
>
> The Working Group has approved CFCs for all new normative content in WCAG
> 2.2 and it is ready to move to Candidate Recommendation.
>
>
>
> The draft is at
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#new-features-in-wcag-2-2
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Fguidelines%2F22%2F*new-features-in-wcag-2-2__%3BIw!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!flmuTjETBmx5VnifT4RMwveezuna8hoG0YKK-mat9hkeZB1Iec0NLqKp_RWvazwy6gMCQUwvCZO8LlCQKq5wEBxiEGvT%24&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612237070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TlBLORb%2Fb7aT9J6xi1lGe4V%2FlSNqbArMXottNi7AXGQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> An outline of changes since the last CFC is below.
>
>
>
>
>
>    - Several (proposed) WCAG 2.1/2.0 errata have been tackled. We also
>    agreed to re-publish WCAG 2.1 so the errata will show up in the main spec,
>    and we can tackle more of them before re-publication.
>    - The Flash provisions have been updated.
>    - The exception for Accessibility Authentication has been changed as
>    part of the re-structuring (no change to meaning/requirement).
>
>    https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#accessible-authentication-no-exception
>    <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Fguidelines%2F22%2F*accessible-authentication-no-exception__%3BIw!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!flmuTjETBmx5VnifT4RMwveezuna8hoG0YKK-mat9hkeZB1Iec0NLqKp_RWvazwy6gMCQUwvCZO8LlCQKq5wEESANdJt%24&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cf3ee99925646470d3a8508da89e7f4ff%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637973926612237070%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=99YAEOvH8IuR3ThYcS3UD%2FFWR8ElQNJErrifHPcG8ic%3D&reserved=0>
>
>    - Focus appearance:
>
>
>    - The first line was updated to address the ‘persistence’ objection.
>       - The sub-components aspect was updated.
>       - The SC will be marked at risk due to complexity.
>       - We have added a note on interpreting the visual aspect for
>       sizing, we’re just narrowing down the wording/terms on that currently.
>       - The user-agent survey was very balanced, so checking previous
>       results on the same topic the chairs interpret the consensus view is to use
>       the current exceptions, status quo.
>
>
>    - Focus obscured: No change to the SC, but we are planning to add a
>    cross-reference in the understanding document to focus-appearance for
>    semi-opaque scenarios.
>
>
>
>

-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

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