Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Weekly Survey - Due 23 Sep 2015'

Yes, actually this makes great sense (great analogy to the fuel emissions
standards office.)

We are about to meet and I am a bit behind in getting through all the
feedback, so I can't comment at length but wanted you to know that I heard
and appreciate your points and am working on addressing them.

Thanks!
Sharron

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:52 AM, David Berman | 613-728-6777 <
berman@davidberman.com> wrote:

> Hi Shawn,
>
> Thank you: I should have said that we are a WAI working group, and of
> course I agree with you and others that conforming with WCAG does not
> guarantee an accessible experience.
>
> However, each of the "Tips for..." section pages begins with a statement
> that "These tips are good practice to help you meet Web Content
> Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements. Follow the links to the
> related WCAG requirements," as well as featuring the WCAG sidebar
> prominently in the content order. These two features incorrectly led me to
> believe that these tips are all about helping folk meet WCAG.
>
> I am still in favour of publishing what we have, though perhaps the above
> sentence show be tweaked immediately.
>
> So, once we have clarity as to whether the tips are indeed "help you meet
> WCAG" or not, I could then mark those that seem out of alignment with what
> is required for conformance (e.g. the wise advice within Tips for Designing
> regarding spacing my layout and viewports: good stuff to do...but not
> required for any level of WCAG compliance.)
>
> In the meanwhile, I am marching through Easy Checks, and find myself
> asking the same question: are all the Easy Checks intended to be a subset
> of what one would check during comprehensive conformance evaluation? ... or
> are they intended to align with a more generalist approach to improving
> accessibility? I realize that there are several caveats up front, however I
> think the reader also deserves precision as to whether we're talking WCAG
> (and perhaps even at what Level) or not.
>
> For the Tips (and the Easy Checks), consider this analogy.
> If I walk into the office of the California government responsible for
> (amongst other things) fuel emission standards,
> and they had a brochure called "Some of The Simpler Things Your Car Ought
> To Have Regarding Emissions", as a person who knows very little about
> engines I am going to (perhaps wrongly) assume that everything that
> brochure calls for is a subset of what my car needs to pass the emission
> standards. If some things mentioned are mandatory, while some are not ("Um,
> sir, the emission standards are actually getting a bit long in the tooth...
> all we experts here at the bureau actually think you really ought to do
> something a bit different that what the standards call for if you really
> care about the planet") ... while there is also a disclaimer saying that
> there are mandatory things not mentioned in the brochure (and as a naive
> visitor I am not sure if those words are just there because the Legal
> Department insisted, or whether indeed there are lots of mandatory things
> missing), then I would be certainly confused (and perhaps frustrated).
>
> *The key here is that I didn't walk into any office: I walked into the the
> office responsible for fuel emission standards, and so there is a
> perhaps-confounding expectation that the guidance will be for their
> standard. *And just because on this particular day I am only interested
> in whether my VW passes the emission standards, it doesn't mean I'm not
> interested more broadly in what's best for the planet.However because I
> chose to visit this particular office, there is a good chance that I am
> interested in and expecting clear guidance regarding conformance.
>
> While each one of us, of course, has strong ideas on how WCAG could be
> even better, I feel we have a fiduciary duty to support the standard, as
> well as an educator's duty to distinguish tips that aid compliance vs. any
> tips that would never be mandatory for conformance.
> Perhaps each tip (and check) should be designated as one of:
> () something you must do to achieve a particular WCAG conformance level, OR
> () one of many ways to achieve something that is mandatory for WCAG
> conformance, OR
> () always just a best practise
> ... of course worded more plainly.
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> - David
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-09-23 16:36, Shawn Henry wrote:
>
> On 9/22/2015 8:06 PM, David Berman via WBS Mailer wrote:
> ...
>
> ---------------------------------
> Resolutions of 18 September
> ----
> Please look at the RESOLUTIONS from the 18 September Teleconference.
> Indicate your approval or concerns with the resolution passed at that
> meeting.
>
>
>   * ( ) I was in the teleconference and I'm OK with them!
>   * ( ) I have reviewed the minutes and agree to the Resolutions passed.
>   * (x) I have reviewed the minutes but have concerns with the
> Resolutions,
> and I explain them below.
>   * ( ) I have not read the minutes yet, and have put the date for my
> review
> into the comments box.
> Comments:
> I support all of the resolutions, except that I don't buy into the "Tips
> cover good accessiblity practice. Some are required to pass WCAG". Sharron
> and Shawn, you'll recall this came up in our very first conversation: and,
> having joined the Tips project in the middle, I will certainly continue to
> loyally help construct whatever mandate of tips the group wishes. However
> I
> still feel that offering people tips that don't clearly trace for them to
> complying with identifiable WCAG SC risks confounding rather than
> educating
> them successfully. WCAG is overwhelming enough for the beginner: why
> confuse them with content that does not help lead them to compliance?
> Furthermore, there are no shortage of WCAG-traceable tips we could choose
> from: quick wins that encourage people that they are capable of eventually
> learning how to comply with all the success criteria relevant to their
> role. We are a WCAG working group, not a generalist universal design
> working group, and so I think this is one place where people should expect
> nothing but guidance that helps them march towards compliance on specific
> criteria, while also letting them know:
> 1. whether the technique is the only way to comply with a given SC, and
> 2. generally making the entire challenge less daunting.
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I do understand your point, yet am having trouble converting it into a
> specific change request for these Tips. Specifically, I don't recall seeing
> your concerns with including the tips that are good practice but not
> explicit WCAG requirements.
>
> Would you point out which such Tips you proposed that we not include?
> (ideally, and provide links to your comments on those :-)
>
> Also, a couple clarifications:
> 1. Re: "why confuse them with content that does not help lead them to
> compliance? ... We are a WCAG working group, not a generalist universal
> design working group".
> Actually, EOWG is a W3C WAI Working Group, but not the WCAG Working Group
> -- we are broader than WCAG. EOWG has previously chosen to promote good
> practice to improve accessibility that sometimes goes beyond minimum WCAG
> requirements. We are contentious of making that clear; for example, in Easy
> Checks we said things like "(This is best practice in most cases, though
> not a requirement because a form control label can be associated in other
> ways.)" and in the Tips pages we link to related WCAG SC information, and
> carefully avoided saying they were requirements.
> 2: "whether the technique is the only way to comply with a given SC"
> That is beyond the scope of these Tips pages. We are pointing to SC with
> lists of techniques, but not to specific techniques.
>
> EOWG had discussed whether we needed to identify the few Tips that go
> beyond minimum WCAG requirements, verses having an overall statement at the
> beginning. Perhaps we need to revisit that? I now wonder if we need to
> delay this first version for it, or if we can publish the first version and
> continue working through it?
>
> Regards,
> ~Shawn
>
>
> --
> David Berman, RGD, FGDC [image: LinkedIn]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/bermandavid> [image: Twitter @davidberman]
> <http://www.twitter.com/davidberman> [image: Facebook]
> <http://www.facebook.com/davidbberman> [image: Skype davidberman.com] [image:
> Google Plus] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DavidBermanCom/posts>
> David Berman Communications | berman@davidberman.com | @davidberman | blog
> <http://www.designedgecanada.com/author/david-berman>
> +1-613-728-6777 | 340 Selby Avenue, Ottawa K2A 3X6
>
> High Level Advisor, United Nations | GDC ethics chair | Ico-D
> Sustainability chair | Carleton University Access Network chair
> ------------------------------
> *Accessibility courses:* Ottawa | Europe | Vancouver | Victoria
> *Upcoming:* Toronto | Mexico City | Dublin | Korea | Bahrain
> Watch David on CBS
> <http://www.wtoc.com/story/17588481/scad-plans-revitalization> | Do Good
> book news: <http://www.dogoodbook.com/> "Don't just do good design ... do
> good!"
>
> This message may contain proprietary information. Unauthorized
> disclosure/copying/distribution of contents prohibited.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>


-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*