Re: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

Also,

WCAG definitely does not apply to only “sight loss” nor is WCAG a state
architected standard. In fact, let’s fight strongly against that
assumption… despite U.S. side stepping its responsibility to articulate its
own “solution.” I’m not against WCAG being a referenced standard to achieve
U.S. legal compliance, but they are not one in the same.

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:22 PM Benjamin Love <benjamin.james.love@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Admittedly, I’m not well versed in progressive enhancement in practice (vs
> well other approaches) but if the assumption is that progressive
> enhancement is potentially THE method for removing and avoiding barriers to
> access across time… Sounds grand.
>
> I have yet to find a true “foundation” to build upon over time to “easily”
> maintain access outside of following the *living* standards of HTML, CSS,
> and access-oriented JS. Validation of reading/presentation systems, and of
> course guided by end-user engagement.
>
> Because of the numerous / varied technologies at play in our individual
> and collective experiences with accessing digital media/information, it’s
> hard to imagine such a model in actuality. And given the diversity of other
> conditions/factors that may disrupt our ability to access, …
>
> I prefer to approach accessible design and dev as a problematic rather
> than a problem. Barriers to access can be “solved.” But accessibility
> itself cannot, will not (must not…).
>
> We do right, ethically, morally, to respond and be responsible toward, but
> barriers to access will never cease to exist given the diversity of human
> experience and the ever-variable conditions under which we exist together.
> Equality vs Equity. University vs Diversity.
>
> In some ways, such theoretical approaches to design/dev, while important
> (they invite discourse, testing, debate, etc.) can also function
> unfortunately as problematic “overlays.”
>
> Understand the fundamentals and functions of the technologies with which
> we interface, follow industry tested guidance, complicate rather than
> simplify your lines of questioning, and engage your users.
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 7:34 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>> Speaking personally?
>> There is no such thing as an average end user save in the minds of those
>> creating statistics.
>> There are hundreds of millions of people in countless locations all doing
>> individual things on the web.
>> The most surprising and best enforcement of the Lynx browser I ever came
>> across  was in the New York Times, aimed at people wanting to cut down on
>> data use and bondage issues.  not a single reference to accessibility at
>> all.
>> There are those who seek less clutter pages that load faster, clearly
>> labeled items, etc..and as I understand things, wCAG guidelines provide
>> that  choice.  across platforms, systems, and items used.
>> Which I hope helps everyone regardless of the body they have or the tools
>> they use.
>> Just my thoughts,
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 9 May 2024, Adam Cooper wrote:
>>
>> > “In lots of ways though, it's worth pointing out to naysayers that
>> following WCAG also makes the UX better for non-disabled users too.”
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And what are these ways exactly? Level A success criteria are intended
>> to have minimal or no impact on visual design and only a handful of Level
>> AA success criteria could conceivably improve user experience.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:39 PM
>> > To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
>> > Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Karen,
>> >
>> > WCAG is there to ensure anyone with any disability can have the same
>> usability as non-disabled users.
>> >
>> > In lots of ways though, it's worth pointing out to naysayers that
>> following WCAG also makes the UX better for non-disabled users too.
>> >
>> > Disabilities can be physical (unable to use the mouse), poor
>> sight/blindness, learning disabilities (ensuring the user knows their
>> position on the page and that things are clear) and many more. Mild
>> disabilities affect a significant number of computer users, WCAG isn't just
>> for a tiny few percentage of users!
>> >
>> > As to progressive enhancement, there is one failure condition in the
>> guidelines that points to this, but it is highly contentious and I believe
>> it has been under discussion to be reworked/removed.
>> >
>> > Many developers feel that supporting a CSS/JavaScript free website is
>> not tenable today and, in fact, to follow progressive enhancement would be
>> detrimental to providing the best experience for both disabled and
>> non-disabled users. (There are also old school devs who still believe in
>> it).
>> >
>> > I would suggest to follow the guidelines and use all available modern
>> tooling to give your users the best UX.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net
>> <mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net> > wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> I am hoping that there is a link to well anything, guidance material
>> for example, that provides  wisdom around progressive enhancement design.
>> >> how, as I understand it, working from this foundation  creates broader
>> access, can, in theory, get one closer to wcag compliance?
>> >> I am encountering far too many folks who either believe that wcag only
>> applies to sight loss, or that it *mandates* certain tools must be used
>> legally...and some of that comes from the u. s. state department.
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Karen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>