RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

As I said, only a handful of Level AA success criteria …  

 

For example, SC1.4.1 affects only people who cannot perceive differences in ‘colour’ so there is no benefit to people who can perceive colour. People with certain neurological conditions have difficulty comprehending text written in certain hues like red, but WCAG has no provision for this. 

 

The 3:1 ratio for the relative brightness of UI components is sufficient for people with twenty-twenty visual acuity for dimensions and distances commonly used for the web. There is a significant population of people who have better than twenty-twenty visual acuity. Increasing the relative brightness of UI components does not NECESSARILY mean UI components become more perceivable for these groups.

 

And I am not sure as to which Level A or Level AA success criterion treats the redundancy of re-entering text?

 

In my view, It’s commonplace to make the claim that conforming to WCAG 2.x universally improves user experience, but it’s harder to demonstrate this in all cases. 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>; 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>; 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

 

Firstly, and probably most importantly, looking at the labelling and keyboard issues leads to the designer seeing/thinking about UX improvements – these often come about as patching the poor UX is harder than doing it with a better UX.

Captions, and transcripts, are a win for all.

The use of colour means that a designer has to think about their choices mindfully – that’s a visual improvement.

Page Titled – get that right and it’s a boon to anyone who uses many open tabs simueltaneously.

Change of context – again a boon for all if that gets sorted.

Redundant entry – you might enjoy typing but I don’t – great UX.

 

And that’s just level A.

 

At AA Contrast is a massive win for all, reflow (especially on mobile), consistent navigation, flexible orientation, programmatically identifying form field purpose, error handling all help to provide a better solution.

 

Kevin

 

 


Kevin Prince 


Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant


 


Foster Moore


A Teranet Company


 

 

E  <mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com> kevin.prince@fostermoore.com


Christchurch


 <http://www.fostermoore.com/> fostermoore.com

From: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:19 PM
To: 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>; 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. 

 

“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 <mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:39 PM
To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net <mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net> >
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>