Re: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

I personally feel this dialogue/debate is terrific, as it underscores the
limits of theory in praxis, which is a good thing. If I am understanding
the initial inquiry, the ask was can anyone point to more technical
examples/approaches to this theoretical model as a matter of successful
implementation. The answer, I believe, is no, “we” cannot, as such models
lack that much needed zoomable approach (abstraction down to particulars
re-abstracted, etc.)

You’re both atomizing particular challenge areas. While the argument
between may not be clear, it wonderfully demonstrates how metaphors of
“concrete” and “foundation” are wonderful insofar as they are metaphors,
but in pouring that metaphor into meaning, the ingredients become much more
significant and troubling. (Troubling is “good” word here).

I am also inclined to ask, for whom are such theoretical models intended?
We often simplify down to “developers” and “designers,” but in our everyday
lives, so many more professionals and titles are involved, who have a
rather wide range / diversified set of skills, experience, motives. That’s
a lot of opinions, values, assumptions that need to be engineered into a
“unified” solution.

I just do not believe such models are worth considering more than curious
ideas of how “things” could be rather than answers to how things will be.

But now I’m also not being helpful.

Ben

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 6:40 PM Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Kevin,
>
>
>
> Your responses to my assertions regarding relative brightness and the use
> of colour clearly indicate to me that your grasp of these concepts is
> limited in my opinion so let’s not continue with those.
>
>
>
> That’s precisely what I am saying: I don’t believe it is literally
> possible for ‘good UX design’ to ‘improve it for all’.
>
>
>
> I agree that accessibility-in-design is much preferred to what is now the
> orthodoxy of so-called WCAG compliance, but user experience design is often
> confused with visual design or is insufficiently defined by its
> practitioners to be useful in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Apart from anything else, user experience can only be informed by quality
> user research that incorporates a digital asset in a broader journey that
> starts and ends beyond any list of features to be implemented in a user
> interface.
>
>
>
> By my way of thinking, what you are describing is about improving
> usability rather than user experience per se which is what accessibility is
> anyway – usability for people with disability.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I don’t think we’re getting very far with this, so perhaps we can
> spare those on the list and take it off-list if you’re still interested?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2024 10:54 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?
>
>
>
> Sorry Adam – you are ignoring the holistic nature of good UX design. I am
> sorry to appear to be shooting you down but I am attempting to address your
> points.
>
>
>
> Without the WCAG contrast there is often worse contrast than the minimum.
> The graph example is entirely about colour alone – mid gray vs a slightly
> darker grey would work if one of them had hatching (It would still be
> horrible 😉 )
>
>
>
> I’m not an optician but I can guarantee that my experience of text is
> improved by good contrast. And, yes visual processing is complex, but if
> the shape of the letters is obscured by low contrast it is clearly (pun
> intended) harder to read than it need be.
>
>
>
> WCAG in itself does not improve UX – applying WCAG mindfully as part of
> design does. It’s what happens in the company I work with. Often the
> solution is to look at improving the UX rather than patching to meet
> compliance. There’s no point in insisting on a universally ugly experience;
> use the changes you are required to make to improve it for all. I guess it
> depends how you perceive WCAG – is it a part of the design process or a
> checklist at the end. I prefer to embed it from the start.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> *Kevin Prince *
>
> Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant
>
>
>
> *Foster Moore*
>
> A Teranet Company
>
>
>
> *E* kevin.prince@fostermoore.com
>
> Christchurch
>
> *fostermoore.com <http://www.fostermoore.com/>*
>
> *From:* Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2024 11:53 AM
> *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.
>
>
>
> 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* kevin.prince@fostermoore.com
>
> Christchurch
>
> *fostermoore.com <http://www.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>
> *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* kevin.prince@fostermoore.com
>
> Christchurch
>
> *fostermoore.com <http://www.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>
> *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> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>