- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:51:12 -0500
- To: "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'IG - WAI Interest Group List list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF26B927B4.25D28A4D-ON86257EA1.00706562-86257EA1.00728ED4@us.ibm.com>
I hope UAAG work continues. I don't just want it, I demand it continue!
That is where we can get more bang for the buck of effort. It is a proven
fact that it is more effective to fix a few browsers than millions of web
sites.
Organizational policy refreshes should be requiring conformance to UAAG
2.0! Don't we all have a right to an accessible browser that supports all
the content that conforms to WCAG? Accessibility requires two halves to
solve the equation - a conforming web site and a conforming user agent.
That is fundamental to digital accessibility, period.
See http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php
"It is essential that several different components of Web development and
interaction work together in order for the Web to be accessible to people
with disabilities."
I believe that is why the the contextual or historical evolution to the
success criteria will be very important.
so that solicitation requirements and policies in organization will be
better aligned to evolving technology. Didn't some agency just extend
their support for Windows XP and IE 8, another agency is still standard on
IE6 - how does one provide access when the app won't even run on a ancient
platform and browser?
Understanding the factors for why the SC was assigned to Level AA does
come into play here especially when those factors were related to better
implementation by the browser. Each SC was evaluated individually by the
working group, capturing those factors will improve our "community
knowedge" and help us focus on the priorities that will make a difference.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
From: "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>
To: Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "'Jonathan Avila'"
<jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'IG - WAI
Interest Group List list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: 08/14/2015 03:22 PM
Subject: RE: Level AA exceptions
That was discussed ? at least for adding an enhanced visual focus
indication (2.4.7) - SC for UAAG, and never implemented ? in part because
I, and perhaps others on other occasions, didn?t get off my butt ? or have
time ? to work on that and work with Jim Allen and others to make it
happen,???.one the other hand, future UAAG work may, very unfortunately,
be moot?.:-(
?????
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
Office: 703-371-5545
From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; IG - WAI Interest Group
List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Level AA exceptions
Jonathan,
" . . current Apple approach to improving contrast is not sufficient"
". . . best filter . . . is on the Android"
". . . inability of the web developer to access accessibility API
features or settings"
OK, factors to document for why it is still Level AA then? and perhaps a
technique and requirements for UAAG?
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
To: Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "IG - WAI Interest
Group List list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: 08/14/2015 03:06 PM
Subject: RE: Level AA exceptions
Ø In other words, when should a new success criteria replace the
existing one? Should the new one place the requirement that the web
content should not interfere and should respect the contrast settings of
the platform
I?ll say that the current Apple approach to improving contrast is not
sufficient and under iOS seems to also be reliant on the developer
honoring settings. The increase contrast slider on Mac OS X has the
wonderful affect of actually reducing contrast and seems in my opinion to
be utterly unhelpful at correctly increasing contrast for the different
types of text content that appears on screen. For example, turning it on
will darken the background but lighten the text in ways that actually make
the text disappear.
The best filter that I have seen to improve contrast is on the Android
which added a double black and white halo around all text. This is the
similar technique that is used on VoiceOver to provide a highly visible
focus rectangle in all situations ? applying a double black and white
rectangle.
Since the platforms that users may view content on vary so widely it is
hard to allow one of these to meet the SC as in most public sites there is
no way to guarantee the user will actually have access to it.
Another added issue is the inability of the web developer to access
accessibility API features or settings from the platform or for the user
agent to communicate those settings to the web page.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 3:25 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org; IG - WAI Interest Group List list
Subject: Re: Level AA exceptions
Gregg,
> Hope this helps
Sure, but mostly what I already posted. What's missing is the documented
rationale for why an individual particular SC is considered Level AA. We
have all the "possible" factors, being 'Essential" was indeed one of the
factors, But we don't have documented which of the many possible factors
were considered for this particular SC. Yes we know in general that all
these factors may have been considered for all the SC. but, For example,
again,
Why was SC 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum assigned AA?
Why was SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible assigned AA?
Many feel it is essential, but mostly handled by the browser, is that why?
where is that written?
Why a SC is assigned Level AAA seems to be more clear and agreed to
because it was not possible to meet them for all web sites and types of
content.
Are there other factors that were considered that weren't listed, such as
availability of assistive technology in certain languages or countries?
The availability of certain assistive technology features that are now in
browsers is another factor not explicitly listed. For example, Apple iOS
has a newer contrast and font feature, does that have a factor in
considering why SC 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum is assigned Level AA? In other
words, when should a new success criteria replace the existing one? Should
the new one place the requirement that the web content should not
interfere and should respect the contrast settings of the platform,
similar to the way the SC 1.4.4 Resize Text is Level AA?
Again, is having a synopsis of the rationale for why each individual
particular SC was assigned Level AA of value to everyone on this list?
___________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
To: Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, GLWAI
Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: 08/13/2015 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: Level AA exceptions
Hi Phil
Being Essential was indeed one of the factors.
However essential was not the dividing line between A and AA. There are
AA level provisions that are essential as well. In fact there are AAA
level provisions that are essential but that are in Level AAA because it
was not possible to meet them for all web sites and types of content that
the SC would apply. So Essential is not a criteria by itself for an SC
being in any level. None of the items in the list was determinant for
level A or AA provisions.
How were the levels decided for each SC?
As the Understanding WCAG 2.0 doc says - it was based on many factors -
some of which are listed below.
All of these factors in the list were considered by the working group in
deciding which level something went into. There was never one factor. And
there is no formula. The level the SC ended up in was the level that the
group reached consensus on for that provision - given the different
considerations below and more. The list below are the ones identified in
asking the group what was considered. But it is not likely that is is
exhaustive.
So the answer to ?why was a particular SC placed in level A or AA or
AAA?? is:
Because it was the consensus of the Working Group that it be placed
there.
And the answer to ?Bhat did they consider in placing the provision
there?? is:
The list in Understanding WCAG 2.0 gives the major considerations we
identified but there are likely others as well. These are the ones the
working group identified in answering this question.
So what is the difference between A and AA and AAA. Think of them as a
measure of accessibility as in 1 inch 2 inches and 3 inches. each
one is longer than the one before. A is so accessible. AA is more
accessible and AAA is still more accessible. People can decide how
long (inches ) is long enough for a nail for example in order to hold up a
beam. Or how accessible something has to be in order to meet a minimum
accessible standard. Most have decided that A was not enough and that
AA should be required by looking at what was in A and AA. The working
group recommended against requiring AAA for all content because there are
some provisions there than cannot be applied to all content. And there
are other factors for others that put them in this category. But there
are places that require AAA for some parts of a site - or for some types
of content - where they could apply there. And there are those who reach
AAA because they can for their site and they want to go further than Level
AA.
Hope this helps.
(PS this is from my personal knowledge and memory of the working group and
the proceedings - and is not an official statement of the working group)
(PPS the PS is my standard disclaimer for anything that is from my
recollection and understanding and not reviewed and vetted by the working
group current and past).
gregg
----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org
On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:41 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
As more and more policies and regulations adopt both level A and AA and
thereby place more of the responsibility and burden on the web content,
the notion of the difference between and rationale for having Level A and
AA is getting lost and misunderstood.
Is there still general consensus that there are interacting issue that
need to be considered when applying Level AA Success Criteria to all web
content and web applications?
See Understanding Levels of Conformance
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/complete.html#uc-levels-head
"The Success Criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of
conformance by the working group after taking into consideration a wide
range of interacting issues. Some of the common factors evaluated when
setting the level included:
whether the Success Criterion is essential (in other words, if the Success
Criterion isn't met, then even assistive technology can't make content
accessible)
whether it is possible to satisfy the Success Criterion for all Web sites
and types of content that the Success Criteria would apply to (e.g.,
different topics, types of content, types of Web technology)
whether the Success Criterion requires skills that could reasonably be
achieved by the content creators (that is, the knowledge and skill to meet
the Success Criteria could be acquired in a week's training or less)
whether the Success Criterion would impose limits on the "look & feel"
and/or function of the Web page. (limits on function, presentation,
freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the Success Criteria might
place on authors)
whether there are no workarounds if the Success Criterion is not met."
So, that says to me that Level AA Success Criteria are not "essential",
some may not always apply to all types of content (e.g. contrast on
complex visualizations), some may require skills that cannot always be
reasonably achieved by the content creators (e.g. video descriptions), and
that it may impose limits on the "look & feel" and/or function (e.g. more
images / less text), although I believe those success criteria imposing
limits were identified as Level AAA.
In other words "...you are advocating that AA success criteria should have
more 'wiggle room' than Level A Success Criteria" ?
Yes, because the working group reached consensus on making it level AA
instead of Level A because of the wide range of interacting issues.
However, none of the supporting documents (Note1) have listed the specific
"interacting issues" per individual success criteria for why it was
assigned level AA or level AAA instead of level A. Yes there are
exceptions listed where appropriate for both Level A and AA Success
Criteria, but those are not the all the issues discussed that caused the
criteria to be assigned as AA instead of A. Most if not all the
"interacting issues" are logged deep in the e-mail archives of the working
group.
So, should there be documentation added on the rationale for why a success
criteria was assigned level AA (instead of A or AAA) to help practitioners
better understand "how to apply level AA success criteria" as compared to
applying Level A success criteria? For example, should a non-normative
section be added titled "Rationale for assigning this SC to Level AA" be
added to the Understanding WCAG 2.0 guide?
Note 1: Supporting documents:
1. Understanding WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/complete.html
2. How to Meet WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 20:51:49 UTC