RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

Adam,
to the individual whose voice browser fails because a developer has 
decided not to insure that all functions work at the base line level; or 
the person  in a rural area with  poor high speed using the only computer 
they have frustrated by a JavaScript requirement  stating that  their 
browser will not work; or the individual with a print disability needing 
highlighting that cannot use on a site; or a person needing a braille 
display due to  deaf blindness; or fill in the blank, at the end of the 
day, generalizations do not get  their needs met.
Instead,  they simply find a closed door.  One, according to a search, 
these policies, in theory are supposed to prevent.
What progressive enhancement provides, even for overwhelmed developers is a 
way  to take some of the guess work out of the equation. Not building to 
the  fastest car on the highway, but building the equal of concrete. 
Concrete that supports  at the basic level, without an individual having 
to  explain their perfectly reasonable for them needs..to an outsider at 
all.
The day you forget that there is a unique human being making important 
decisions using the technology they have on the other side of the screen 
is  the day inclusion becomes meaningless.



On Thu, 9 May 2024, Adam Cooper wrote:

> Hello Karen,
>
> Yes, an average is a statisticians thought experiment, granted, but there are not 'hundreds of millions of people doing individual things on the web' because there are more or less a defined set of possible interactions, behaviours, attitudes, technologies etc.
>
> Sometimes ill-defined, highly Complex and possibly a large set, sure, but not approaching infinity or unfathomable as some make out.
>
> Faster loading, less cluttered, simpler web pages are available without having to use links ... Google has a simplified view feature in its mobile browser and many have a reader mode for desktop browsers, for example, and there are many add-ons and extensions that can achieve similar outcomes.
>
> There has never been a web standard that explicitly supported the links browser ... if anything, it's the other way around. The links browser is an historical phenomenon that capitalised on the incipience of web technologies and the ways in which these were employed.
>
> If you want to use links, that's fine, but accept that the rest of the world may have moved in a different direction.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:30 PM
> To: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
> Cc: 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>