RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

You seem to be arguing against yourself and not reading the responses.

Meeting 3:1 is a minimum and as someone with (corrected) 20:20 vision anything significantly less than that becomes difficult to perceive, read and parse - so that's gonna affect dyslexics even more. Yes, I'll cope but I have a better experience purely for meeting the minimum colour contrast whicjh is a WCAG checkpoint. Put me on a cracked phone screen at the busstop in the rain, or in a high glare situation and grey on grey does not cut it for anyone.
Think about the 3.1:1 in terms of a background image - strasight away the use of the contrast ratio means a sensible designer won't put text over complex graphics - that's a win for the rest of us.
Difference in colour may be aimed at people who cannot perceive colour at all but it makes a huge difference to the usability of information. Have you tried to read those graphs where every line is a subtle shade of the same colour? Have you tried to efficiently parse that information even with 20:20 vision? Another win for all.
Redundant Entry is WCAG 3.3.7 - you maybe need to refresh your knowledge post WCAG 2.2.

It seems as if you consider the standards in isolation when the effect they have is holistic. If they do nothing other than get designers and coders to consider the issues raised they have an improving value for us all.
kevin



From: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.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?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

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<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com<mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com>>; 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>>; '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?

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 kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
Christchurch
fostermoore.com<http://www.fostermoore.com/>
From: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com<mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:19 PM
To: 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>>; '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?

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
>
>
>
>


Kevin Prince

Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant



E kevin.prince@fostermoore.com

Christchurch

fostermoore.com

This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should contact the sender immediately, you must not use, copy or disclose any of the information in the email, and you must delete it from your system immediately.