WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG Extensions

for

From: Ron
Date: Aug 20, 2015 12:19PM

Unfortunately based on my experience it could be a lot more than twice the
work.

Often times in these conversations we are basing our decisions on working
with expert users. Yet data available shows that the typical user is a
NOVICE with their AT.

When you are proposing these one offs to deal with design desires how are
you disinfranchising the majority of users who will encounter your pages.

As someone who works with hundreds of IHE on an annual basis I an very
opposed to taking this in further expansion of the Guidelines.

Ron Stewart


On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Léonie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> > From: WebAIM-Forum On Behalf Of _mallory
> > Sent: 20 August 2015 18:27
>
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0600, Jared Smith wrote:
> > > 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!
> >
> > A split? Something that's okay to be somewhat stale for the lawyers and
> > something that is aware of new technology and new needs and new
> > services, for developers, vendors and spec-writers to lean on?
> >
> > Yeah yeah, double the work I know, and opens more wormcans, but...
> > if we can't speed up laws and politics, it seems dumb to let those hold
> back
> > useful guidelines and information.
> >
>
> I don't think it has to be twice the work. In my original email (to which
> Jared responded via this new thread) [1], I suggested:
>
> "One suggestion is WCAG 2.1, consisting of WCAG 2.0 as it stands (possibly
> with editorial corrections), plus the extensions for low vision and
> cognitive.
> Although WCAG 2.1 would itself be optional, particularly where WCAG 2.0 is
> required in law, it would present a clear and holistic set of guidelines for
> people to use if they wish - without raising the possibility that
> accessibility for certain groups might be optional."
>
> This wouldn't take any longer than what is currently proposed in the draft
> WCAG charter [2]. It could also be worked on whilst we all consider what
> the long term future for such guidelines might be, be they WCAG 3.0 or WAI
> 3.0 or something else altogether.
>
> It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it feels like a reasonable stepping
> stone along the way to me.
>
> Léonie.
> [1] http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_message?id)208
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter
>
>
>
>
> > > > >