RE: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

Hi Gregg,

Many thanks for this excellent write-up!

While I agree with many of your points, I respectfully disagree with some of the statements made in Chapter 3 in particular. Specifically, I disagree with the idea that all barriers are equal. In the document, you make an analogy to physical accessibility in the built environment. As a wheelchair user, it makes a big difference if the barrier is 3 steps at the entrance vs if it is a mirror that is installed too high. I think both need to be called out as barriers and that both need to be removed, but the impacts of these two barriers are definitely different. To be clear, I’m not saying that a building with a mirror installed too high should be labelled as fully accessible or conforming (which seems to be the core of your worry, if I understand you correctly) but it should also not have the same standing as a building with 3 steps at the entrance. I think we need to do better at reflecting the real-world impacts of barriers in WCAG, to help authors effectively prioritize and iterate for improvement. I think we should further explore the following ideas in this context:

#1. Make the requirements more granular. The current WCAG design/structure creates “super criteria” like 1.1.1, 1.3.1, and 4.1.2, which cover many different issues. It’s no surprise that such broad criteria are always critical to someone in some situation, and it’s a bit of a false premises to be building our conclusions based on the current design/structure. I think that by making our requirements more granular and specific, we can better identify their impact and scope.

#2. Better support the notion of context. The current WCAG design/structure could also be improved, to consider the specific context of barriers. For example, we already have the concept of “conforming alternate version” for entire pages. Could a similar concept be considered for individual barriers as well? To come back to your example of 3 steps at the entrance – is there another accessible route and is this alternate route sensible and adequately sign-posted?

These suggestions might make WCAG more voluminous but I think that this is a user interface challenge that can be addressed with the tagging and filtering as you mention. We also have the Quick Reference guide as a proof-of-concept for an interactive/customizable standard at the end of the process.

Best,
  Shadi

---
Shadi Abou-Zahra
Amazon, Device Accessibility
Principal Standards and Policy Manager
---


From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Sent: Monday, 19 September, 2022 7:32 PM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Hi all

I wrote this before TPAC but was asked by the Chairs to hold off - since they had an orderly way mapped out to discuss topics at the TPAC.   Which sounded wise - so I held back.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend TPAC - so I am not privy to what went on there - but from the notes and powerpoint it looks like a lot of good ideas.

I am sending this on — NOT as an alternative to what was done there (I don’t know it all) and I look forward to revising my thinking based on reports from there and our further discussions.  But I think the attached thoughts are helpful to throw into the pot as we discuss WCAG 3.x going forward.

So here there are.

As I note in my sign off of the document - I submit this with some trepidation.  But it will be good to discuss these.   And I REALLY think it would be good to have the stay poll I suggest to see if where we are and are not in agreement.  I often think that - if I listen carefully - people agree on a lot more than they think they do - and preaching to the choir on what needs to be done - when the problem is just that we can’t figure out HOW to do it with all the goals and constraints we have and trying to find something that solves both.

Best

Gregg





Amazon Development Center Austria GmbH
Brueckenkopfgasse 1
8020 Graz
Oesterreich
Sitz in Graz
Firmenbuchnummer: FN 439453 f
Firmenbuchgericht: Landesgericht fuer Zivilrechtssachen Graz