WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

WCAG Extensions

for

From: Jared Smith
Date: Aug 20, 2015 9:36AM

I thought it best to start a new thread to continue this conversation.

Léonie Watson wrote:

> I'd be interested to know what people think about
> WCAG extensions for people in these user groups
> being optional though.

I've been rather vocal in my criticism of WCAG extensions. I believe
that WCAG needs to be simplified and made more understandable, not
made more complex and convoluted with extensions. That there's a 228
page "Understanding WCAG 2.0" document (not to mention 385 pages for
"How to Meet WCAG 2.0") to explain a standard which has a core
principle of "Understandable" is quite telling, I think. If the
working group itself can't decide how extensions would impact
conformance, whether they would be required, or even what "extension"
means, how can they expect authors to?

> Although WCAG 2.1 would itself be optional,
> particularly where WCAG 2.0 is required in law

This is precisely the problem. WCAG 2.0 has become so tied to
legislation that the W3C is reluctant to update it for fear of
derailing legal processes - particularly the excruciatingly long
updates to Section 508 and ADA in the US. These are valid concerns,
but ones that ultimately result in us relying on increasingly stagnant
and outdated WCAG 2.0.

As of right now, the W3C's intentions are to develop extensions under
their current draft charter and then MAYBE begin a WCAG 2.1 or WCAG
3.0 no sooner than 2018, with (if history holds) a several year
development process - which means we might see a true update to WCAG
around 2021, at very best. While extensions would certainly be
insightful, I don't believe that 13+ years between WCAG 2.0 and an
update (there were 9 years between WCAG 1 and 2) is adequate to meet
the accessibility requirements of innovating web technologies.

The WAI director has also suggested that to best ensure stability with
legal standards that WCAG should never be updated, but that they'd
eventually create a new, broader WAI 3.0 standard for accessibility -
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0128.html

The W3C must decide whether they are more interested in optimally
meeting the needs of web authors and people with disabilities by truly
updating WCAG in a timely manner or in appeasing the legislative
processes by keeping WCAG stable. I'd remind them that the G in WCAG
stands for Guidelines. I think guidelines should guide! Yes, a true
WCAG update will be a lengthy, difficult, and ugly process, but I
believe it's what is needed to best provide meaningful and relevant
accessibility guidance.

Jared