RE: Writing about WCAG 3 updates and anxiety-based disabilities

Thanks Jennifer for raising this. I’ve heard from a few non-a11y folk who took a look (and keep in mind, not everyone is going to read the preamble/intro material) and expressed concern over the sheer volume of outcomes. While I tried my best to assure them this is a working draft which will go under change over time, there was certainly reaction.

I realize there’s  nothing to do about it at this point, but going forward, it will be important to reinforce the evolving nature of the outcomes in the communication. I’m assuming that there is explanatory text right at the start of the listing of outcomes.

Jennison

From: Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Writing about WCAG 3 updates and anxiety-based disabilities

Yes, there’s another source that didn’t quite provide the same emphasis.

I suggest that we recommend that all AGWG members put a very straightforward and emphasized section at the beginning that includes that editor’s note.


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 at 5:44 PM
To: Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org<mailto:jstrickland@mitre.org>>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXT] Re: Writing about WCAG 3 updates and anxiety-based disabilities
Hi Jennifer, That is something we were concerned about before it went out, and so the official communications included things like: The introduction https: //www. w3. org/TR/wcag3/#introduction “The list of outcomes is longer than a listing of

Hi Jennifer,

That is something we were concerned about before it went out, and so the official communications included things like:

The introduction https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/#introduction

“The list of outcomes is longer than a listing of Success Criteria in WCAG 2.2 because the intent at this stage is to be as inclusive as possible of potential outcomes.”

The editor’s note right above the new outcomes:
https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/#issue-container-generatedID

“Please consider all items in the list as exploratory at this point. It is a list of all possible topics for consideration. Not all items listed will become requirements.”

The announcement:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2024AprJun/0001.html

“This draft includes *potential *outcomes that we are exploring. The final set of outcomes in WCAG 3 will be different from this draft. Outcomes will be edited, added, combined, and removed.”

The introduction:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/#for-your-review

“Please consider the following questions when reviewing the outcomes in this draft:

  *   What outcomes needed to make web content accessible are missing?
  *   What research supports or refutes these outcomes?
  *   Are any of these outcomes out of scope for accessibility standards? If so, please explain why.”

Some of the unofficial articles included useful statements about the outcomes as well.

  *   Rachael’s post on social media https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7196737641034190848/

  *   Third party articles also noted it https://www.deque.com/blog/w3c-unveils-174-new-outcomes-for-wcag-3-0/


Is there different phrasing that people need, or are they finding out about WCAG 3 updates from different sources?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

PS. I wasn’t familiar with “BLUF”. The first result in google was interesting, but once I got past the “Breeches and Leather Uniform Fanclub” I found a useful result.



From: Jennifer Strickland
Hello fellow AGWG and WCAG 3 / Silver folks,
I’d like to raise a topic for consideration.
BLUF:
When we write about WCAG 3, might we recommend / provide a disclaimer or note of emphasis at the outset that we expect a lot more work to be done and the material in the article / post should not be viewed as indicative of the final state?
For example, the recent working draft is still expected to undergo many revisions.
The reason I raise this is many people in the tech community with disabilities who do not participate in the W3C are expressing stress and overwhelm at the 174 new outcomes. People have expressed distress, hopelessness, and a lack of confidence at the communicated direction, only because it isn’t communicated clearly that the 174 new outcomes are not necessarily representative of the final output.
There are a variety of cognitive / neuro / trauma disabilities that hear this news and experience a state of hyper-arousal, panic, and reactivity. I know AGWG hopes to be inclusive of the range of disability and this is an area that was not well-known in past work. This disability community is especially distressed at the idea of 174 new outcomes, so communicating that this is expected to undergo more revision will help to alleviate that anxiety.
Thank you,
Jen
Jennifer Strickland (they/them, she/her)
Senior Human Centered Accessibility Engineer
Collaboration Solutions (L178)
The MITRE Corporation
Email: jstrickland@mitre.org<mailto:jstrickland@mitre.org>
Cell: 571-319-2230