RE: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

And, Kevin, with the greatest respect, you seem to be more interested in
merely shotting me down rather than addressing my points.

 

Yes, people with less than twenty-twenty vision 'corrected or otherwise' may
have issues with perceiving the relative brightness of items at relevant
distances, but this is what WCAG requires as a minimum as you point out. 

 

The 4.5 an 7 requirements are intended for people with what is called
reduced and limited vision in Australia, but it is an assumption that higher
contrast ratios actually benefit people with a higher visual acuity. 

 

Relative brightness is not the primary factor in visual processing disorders
or neurological conditions such as dyslexia because these are not
necessarily affected by relative brightness, but hue as far as I understand.

 

And your explanation of 1.4.1 in a graph has nothing to do with the use of
colour alone, but the low contrast of grey on grey. 

 

And, thank you for pointing out 3.3.7 - 2.2 is not as familiar as it should
be. 

 

My original question to Michael Livesey was about the ways WCAG improved
user experience (or usability?) for all.

 

Your suggestion that WCAG somehow compels developers to go the extra mile
and make everything usable for everyone isn't all that convincing . nor is
it anything I have seen in my twenty years in the business.

 

My contention is that - and Benjamin Love pointed to this in a post in this
thread - is that notions like universal design or progressive enhancement
are sometimes counterproductive, are idealistic, and faddish.

 

I am not discounting the prospect that conforming to WCAG has benefits for
people without a disability - I'd just like to see the evidence.

 

 

From: Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com> 
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:37 AM
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?

 

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

 

 

 


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


Christchurch


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