Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

> On Oct 4, 2022, at 3:03 AM, Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at> wrote:
> 
> 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:

    GV: I understand it is not important for you.   But it may be for someone else.  For example someone who has to attach a medical device to themselves and, if it becomes detached, has to rely on the mirror in the public place to replace it.   That is pretty narrow but for websites — I am worried that what is considered not a showstopper is a showstopper for people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities.     If there are provisions that clearly are not showstoppers for anyone - then perhaps they go in as recommendations rather than requirements.    

My only comment is that — we always judge what is important by what is important/critical to us - or to our imaginations of what would be important/critical to others.  And that has not worked out well in the past for all those that get left out.

Still keeping an open mind on this - but - as I mentioned before - I spent a cumulative decade trying to make weighting   and / or scoring work.  And I always failed.   Watching to see if the group can find what I could not — or if it just is going down the same rabbit holes 

>  
> #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.

   GV: the problem with this approach is that you end up making the provisions less technology agnostic and more technology and current interface approach specific.  This DOES make them easier to read.  And Easier to understand.  And easier to apply.   But it also makes them less future proof and as interfaces change - it won’t cover them.    Also the technology agnostic approach is what made WCAG so applicable to other (soft) ICT. 
>  
> #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?

   GV: I worry that - as you point out below - this will blow up the guidelines.   We already cover conditions using  "IF" or "WHERE…" conditional clauses and with exceptions.     But if you add contexts - where do you start and end?   And as new contexts arise they are uncovered.         The whole ADA / WEB  problem stemmed from their assuming it would only apply in a context of bricks and mortar.     Will our contexts include virtual interfaces created in the minds of people using BCI?    What else is coming? 

Always interested in new ideas — but also mindful that new is not necessarily better.     And if what we have has problems - it doesnt mean that different will not have more. Different maybe - but also may better and maybe worse. 

All the best 

G
   
>  
> 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 <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> 
> Sent: Monday, 19 September, 2022 7:32 PM
> To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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