RE: WCAG Next Possible Models

one of the things that I have often found is that the vast majority of 
people with disabilities live below the poverty level so often run older 
versions of adaptive software if for no other reason than the lack of 
funds to update.

it is also one of the reasons many use FOSS such as eMACspeak and orca 
FWI eMACspeak is as far as I know the only softwware package that a 
person who is blind can install completely independently.  unfortunately 
while powerfull it is complex

if it were me making the  rules (and we,ve had discussions on this) I 
would require CSS all the way down to Pine or Alpine and Lynx

the rules are indeed difficult to understand and it seems the hardware and 
software designers go out of thier way to force this difficulty.  I am 
sure that if they wanted to all hardware and software could be made to use 
a single package much like the cross platform word processing programs


On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Balusani, Shirisha wrote:

> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:45:51 +0000
> From: "Balusani, Shirisha" <>
> To: WAI Interest Group <>
> Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
> Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:46:25 +0000
> Resent-From:
> I agree with John's line of thought. But I would like to pose these questions about the existing rules and AT’s:
> 1) What versions of the different browsers are supported? I mean when we test applications for accessibility, check the compatibility of screen readers versions with the browsers versions?
> For example, up to what previous version of JAWS should be tested with IE (version), similarly NVDA (V) with FF (V), Chromevox (V) with Chrome(V), Voiceover with safari , and  Dragon, Windows eyes etc.
> 2) Also some of the existing WCAG rules are difficult to understand as all information is not available at one place. Providing examples will help users to get better understanding of the rules.  Provide examples of accessible widgets in the rules. This would be really helpful for developers.
> 3) A few times I encountered accessibility issues but didn't find appropriate rules to map to.
> For example: When there is an interactive data (canvas), I don't want screen readers to read the text related to this interactive element as they are not accessible to the screen readers. If a part of data associated with the interactive element read by AT's then it will confuse the AT users.
> Note: There is an alternative method provided to get that data for the AT users.
> In this scenario I don't know to which rule I should map this failed scenario to.
> Siri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foliot []
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:44 AM
> To:; 'Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)' <>
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
> Hi Bob,
> While I agree that platform specific guidance can introduce some unforeseen issues, I also am thinking that it would be slightly more high-level than that.
> For example in your wheelchair ramp example, we can specify minimum and maximum angles of ascent/decent for the ramp, as well as min and max widths when a wheelchair ramp is being contemplated for a building, but those same numbers (requirements) may change when the ramp is to a van or other automotive conveyance (or might require a lift instead, as the ramp may not always be a viable solution). I don't see an actual problem there; the guidance would be conditional on other environmental factors, with the net goal of successfully accomplishing the task. (So for example, touch interfaces already have some issues which we cannot change. We cannot simply say "Don't use touch interfaces").
> I will also suggest that the validity of any WCAG Success Criteria cannot and should not be hinged on the cost of any particular piece of technology: I support FOSS as a matter of principle, but cannot ignore viable and working commercial products as well, simply because they are commercial in nature. Equally, we cannot ignore commercial solutions simply because there may not exist an Open Source equivalent in the marketplace today.
> JF
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: []
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:30 AM
>> To: Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA) <>
>> Cc: John Foliot <>;
>> Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
>> the USA and I suspect many other places actually prohibit platform
>> specific technology UNLESS the entire platform and technology are provided free.
>> fortunately or unfortunately there are many different platforms and
>> technologies that meet the needs of various persons with disabilities
>> needs and/or preferences.
>> if someone has an entire working system in say windows 8 will your
>> system that requires a Mac force them to buy all new equiipment and
>> learn all new prochedures for using this
>> and of course folks using BsD or Linux or "X" well they are not even
>> considered...??
>> would be similar to having a wheelchair ramp that could only be used
>> by a single brand of wheelchairs and others would not fit.,
>> Bob
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA) wrote:
>>> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:13:34 +0000
>>> From: "Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)" <>
>>> To: John Foliot <>,
>>>     "" <>
>>> Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
>>> Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:14:07 +0000
>>> Resent-From:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am in support of option: WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or
>> platform.
>>> I work for the Government of Ontario and as of this past January
>>> (2016) we are
>> required by the AODA regulation
>> ( to make all our
>> public facing web content comply to WCAG 2.0 Level AA guidelines. A
>> significant change to the guidelines could have a huge impact on the
>> work we have already done.
>>> A part of our online content is online learning courses (eLearning)
>>> and they
>> must also be complaint to WCAG Level AA which is not a straight
>> forward process. These guidelines apply very different to eLearning
>> than to a website or electronic document. I emailed out to the group
>> list a few weeks ago looking for anyone else that was trying to work
>> through defining how WCAG applies to actual eLearning courses and
>> unfortunately there is not a lot of information out there so we are
>> working through developing this. I think that the guidelines would
>> best be served if they are kept mostly as is but had an eLearning
>> extension that developers of online learning can use to ensure that they are meeting guidelines for online learning courses.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kristy
>>> From: John Foliot []
>>> Sent: April-08-16 12:36 PM
>>> To: WCAG;; 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>>> Subject: WCAG Next Possible Models
>>> [Please share freely]
>>> Colleagues,
>>> The WCAG Working Group is looking for public feedback and comment on
>>> the
>> creation of extensions to WCAG 2.0. Your input is being solicited
>> today and comments should be forwarded to the WAI IG Mailing list with the subject line:
>> WCAG Next Possible Models. Background information and more details on
>> how to comment follow.
>>> Earlier in March, a discussion started off at the W3C on what
>> should look like. That initial discussion has actually forked into two
>> related discussion, the differentiator being a question of time.
>>> The first discussion revolves around a big-picture major revision of
>>> WCAG. This
>> discussion is looking at what the next generation of accessibility
>> guidance should look like, and it incorporates thoughts around
>> integrating UAAG 2.0 and ATAG
>> 2.0 into a more integrated approach. This is an exciting idea, and it
>> is envisioned that this will be a 3 to 5 year undertaking (perhaps longer).
>>> Slightly more pressing however is the fact that there are a number
>>> of Task
>> Forces at the W3C that are looking at building ‘extensions’ to
>> WCAG 2.0, to provide additional guidance (including possible new
>> Success Criteria, Understanding and Techniques documents) around
>> topics such as Mobile accessibility, Low Vision concerns, and
>> addressing the needs of those with Cognitive disabilities. Some of
>> this effort is becoming fairly mature, and so the second discussion is
>> around what are we going to do with all of this guidance and content.
>> The content coming from the Task Forces is nearing completion, and it
>> is badly needed today. I think most can agree that we cannot wait
>> another
>> 3 to 5 years for a major “refresh” of WCAG 2.0., and the Working
>> Group has been chartered to create extensions to WCAG 2.0 in this interim period.
>>> The WCAG Working Group are now looking at what then, exactly, will
>>> WCAG
>> 2.0 extensions look like?
>>> So far, discussion has surface 4 potential “strawman”
>>> possibilities, which can be found at:
>>> We have not ruled out other possible models however, and so there
>>> still exists
>> the possibility of yet a 5th , 6th , or more possible strawman
>> proposal(s). Critical to the final decision however is that we also
>> ensure broad public comment and input in an effort to ensure we have the best possible model moving forward.
>>> Which is the purpose of this email.
>>> If you use, or are impacted by the use of, WCAG 2.0 we want to hear
>>> your
>> thoughts. The goal is to gather as much feedback as possible over the
>> next 2 or
>> 3 weeks so that an informed decision can be made. This is your
>> opportunity to contribute to that discussion. Please note that at this
>> time nothing is committed one way or the other, and there exists the
>> possibility that unanimity may never surface, but every effort is
>> being made to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to speak up.
>>> If you would like to comment on this activity, please review the
>>> possible
>> models already brought forward at
>>> ·        What are the Pros? The Cons?
>>> ·        Do you have any other comments to add?
>>> ·        Do you have a preference?
>>> ·        Do you have another potential model not yet contemplated?
>>> All of these questions are in scope, and we’re excited to hear
>> everyone’s thoughts on this topic.
>>> To ensure we can get as broad a community feedback as possible, we
>>> are using the WAI IG Mailing list at
>>><> with the Subject
>>> Line: WCAG Next Possible Models. This public mailing list is open to
>>> all to participate in, once you have signed up to be a member of
>>> that list. Information on how to join the WAI-IG mailing list can be
>>> found at
>>> Please note that we are also currently looking for a possible means
>>> of
>> collecting anonymous feedback as well, and if/when we have that
>> ability we will further advise.
>>> Our goal is to gather this feedback over the next 2 or 3 weeks, and
>>> present out
>> findings to the Working Group with a proposed recommendation on how to
>> move forward. While comments and feedback to the WCAG Working Group
>> are always welcome, we hope to wrap this up fairly quickly, and so if
>> you wish to comment you are urged to do so soon.
>>> This is an unique opportunity to gather community feedback, and we
>>> look
>> forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>> JF
>>> ​--
>>> John Foliot
>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>> Austin, TX
>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>> 2121 Cooperative Way, Suite 210,
>>> Herndon, VA 20171-5344
>>> Office: 703-225-0380
>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 16:05:00 UTC