(unknown charset) Re: progresive enhancement, and wcag guides?

Michael,
I am unsure of your professional grounding,  but I  am wondering why, in 
your opinion, discussing a process which by its definition is designed to 
broaden  accessibility across populations, is counterproductive?
It seems a debate, with those who spend their professional time on WCAG, 
or live with how the guidelines are implemented is part of why we are 
here.
counterproductive is a blanket lane to make around what  has been shown to 
benefit  accessibility.
Goodness, that would be like my claiming, not that I ever would, that 
braille focus is counterproductive, even if statistically less than 10% of 
the sight loss population are braille users.  Or saying such because I do 
not use personally, knowing three recently blinded individuals who choose 
not to use Braille.
Blanket  condemnation does not educate, speaking personally.



On Fri, 10 May 2024, Michael Livesey wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> I agree completely re progressive enhancement being counterproductive, but
> I won't say anymore as it might trigger a debate.
>
> Re WCAG making the UX better for everyone - in my opinion everyone benefits
> from text that is clear to read, scrolling in one direction only (reflow),
> clear focus borders, focus order being logical, semantic markup etc etc.
>
> I would argue that there aren't any non-disabled users who benefit from
> text being cut off at different resolutions, overflow in y and x
> directions, and focus order jumping all over the place. This is especially
> the case when viewing websites on mobile devices and/or adverse conditions
> such as sunshine on the screen.
>
> On Friday, May 10, 2024, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>