WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19

for

From: Laura Carlson
Date: Aug 20, 2015 12:34PM

Hi Léonie,

One thing to remember is that nothing is stopping entities, including
legal entities from mandating WCAG 2.0 plus an extensions as soon as
said extension is available.

You will note that in section 3.2 "Dependencies & Liaisons" of the
draft charter the following groups are listed:

* U.S. Access Board
* European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
* European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
* European Commission
* RERC for the Advancement of Cognitive Technologies
* RERC on Universal Interface and Information Technology Access

From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to be
faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Léonie Watson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >, "'WebAIM Discussion List'"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Cc:
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:54:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] W3C-WAI Low Vision Accessibility Task Force -
Seeking Participation
The creation of this W3C TF is very welcome. Coupled with the TF
already looking into accessibility for people with cognitive
disabilities [1], it's a positive step towards closing the gaps in
WCAG.

I'd be interested to know what people think about WCAG extensions for
people in these user groups being optional though. The draft charter
for the WCAG Working Group [2] states "ensure that extensions are
optional and are not required for conformance to WCAG 2.0".

It's understandable that WCAG 2.0 itself can't be amended, but is a
set of separate optional extensions the best approach? Is there a way
to incorporate the much needed guidance for cognitive and low vision
(in a timely fashion), without conveying the message that
accessibility for these groups is optional?

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.

Léonie.


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter

--
Laura Carlson