Re: Level AA exceptions

Wayne, my response [in Phill bold blue brackets]

____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 



From:   Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
To:     Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc:     CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, WAI Interest Group 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, GLWAI Guidelines WG 
org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   08/14/2015 11:36 AM
Subject:        Re: Level AA exceptions



What is normative? That really is the issue. I am less concerned 
informative notes because they are non-binding. Having attempted to 
explain Level A and Level AA many times to managers and programmers, I 
have found the logic of Understanding WCAG 2.0, very difficult and not 
compelling. Phill is correct. There is a gap that needs filling. We need 
clear language. I think, normative.
 [Phill writes: you are using "normative' in a different way than I was. 
Policies and regulations are "binding" when they say to conform with the 
particular Success Criteria (SC).  In guidelines and standards speak, 
"normative" is defined in the glossary - see 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary "Content required for conformance is 
referred to as "normative." .  Normative content is whether a SC is A or 
AA, Informative content is where we can  explain why it is A or AA. 
Informative doesn't change the SC from being A or AA, nor does it change 
the binding part of the organization's or country's regulation or policy, 
it informs but doesn't set the requirement.]

In my opinion it needs to be clear in its responsibility to stake holders, 
with the user with a disability being at the center.  Web content in all 
formats is be profoundly robust. The migration to mobile formats has 
proven this. There is no need that essential functionality needs cannot be 
met, but we need to address concepts like the American terms, undue burden 
and fundamental alteration, carefully and land on normative language.  
Like all statements in natural language we need to allow for 
interpretation. Perhaps we need a formal elastic clause that permits 
variation.
[Phill writes: now you are using the "language" that is in the policies 
and regulations, not something we need to address in WCAG.   "Undue burden 
and "fundamental alteration" are policy terms used in 508 policy part, not 
found in WCAG 2.0. Another term used in policies and regulations is 
"scoping".  What does the technical requirement apply to? for example. ADA 
is being considered by the Dept of Justice (DoJ) to be amended to apply 
the requirements in WCAG 2.0 to certain commercial web sites it has 
jurisdiction over.  ADA has scoping terms like a percentage of the parking 
spaces need to be "van accessible", while the technical specs for the 
width of a "van accessible" parking spec is separate. DoJ calls the 
percentage of parking spaces a "standard" in legal terms, so that is 
confusing when we talk about technical requirements in the WCAG standard. 
Think of WCAG 2.0 as the list of technical specs for what makes a web site 
accessible, it is still up to a policy to scope which web sites need to 
conform and by when. There is also the jurisdiction or applicability part 
that the policy lawyers get involved in - for example, the Department of 
Transportation (DoT) has required all airline website to be conform to 
WCAG by a certain date, but DoT doesn't regulate Netflix, they are 
regulated by FCC, etc. WCAG doesn't regulate anyone, so there is no need 
for terms like "undue burden' or "fundamental alteration" to be included 
in WCAG..]

​I think what we can all agree on is that, level differentiation needs 
clarification.  Now that WCAG is beyond the crazy flurry of criticism that 
it faced in 2008, WCAG WG can revisit these definitions. 
[Phill writes: well, changing something from a AA to an A is almost moot, 
because they are all required all the time anyway by the policy it seems - 
that is exactly my point and question.  Should all and each and every one 
of the Level AA Success Criteria always be applicable to all content all 
the time?  If not, why not, and is there any guidance from the working 
group specific to each SC?   Ontario Canada, for example choose not to 
include SC 1.2.5 Audio Descriptions  Level AA because of the cost and 
expertise needed to create video descriptions in audio format.  I am not 
advocating for not including Level AA Success Criteria in policy and 
regulations, but I am asking for more informative content to explain to 
practitioners and policy makers why the working group thought a particular 
SC should be assigned to Level AA.  Level A and AAA are easier, its the 
ones in the middle.  Documenting the "why" helps inform all of us equally, 
which helps the community and the emerging professionals, which in turns 
helps the individual who has a disability at the center.]

Phill has identifies a gap, that has confused many implementers. 

Wayne