WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG Extensions

for

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Aug 20, 2015 12:58PM

I agree with every point Jared made below.

Especially his comment "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..."

A handful of good tech editors could reduce the existing 228-page and 385-page WCAG reference documents in half, at least, and put them into a more comprehendible, palatable format. WCAG's current presentation is dysfunctional and chaotic.

It's time for a complete revamp of WCAG's presentation. I don't mean changing or updating the standards themselves, but the actual WCAG 2.0 document as well as the references Jared cited. Get them edited and presented in a more understandable format that is usable -- and understandable -- by the mere mortals who have to create accessible websites and documents.

A better presentation of WCAG might give us a better foundation to build the extensions or whatever method will be used for updating the standards.

Using a building analogy can help create a strategy that improves WCAG's presentation, allows for faster and easier updates, and encourages easier formal adoption by governments. The analogy: Correct the foundation's problems first (revamp WCAG's presentation and references), and then add the 2-story addition (the extensions or amendments).

--Bevi Chagnon

PS: And I don't think extensions should be optional. Why would we allow for a group of users to be "optionally" discriminated?

-----Original Message-----
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