WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG Extensions

for

From: Jon Metz
Date: Aug 20, 2015 1:35PM

My biggest problem with using optional (or otherwise) extensions is that
we already have that currently. It¹s called AAA guidelines, something
implemented in such a way to specifically pacify disparaged stakeholders
without mandating any compliance to them in order for said needs to be
met. These parts of the standard were written as though they were an
afterthought, as proven by the fact that it¹s virtually impossible to meet
every one of them without conflicting with another.

If for no other reason AAA should be the purpose of revamping the
standards. To make matters worse, WAI itself makes no absolute commitment
to adhering to those same guidelines, choosing instead to meet them when
it¹s most convenient. How can anyone expect to take an optional extension
seriously when the authoring organization doesn¹t even hold much value to
them?

I appreciate the value in ensuring that the guidelines remain stable, but
it¹s naturally expected that technology that they are based on changes.
When that occurs, it should be the authoring organizations duty to revise
them as they can. Laws and regulations change with time, but it shouldn¹t
be within scope of a standard¹s body to align specifications to them. It
should work the other way around.

Case in point is what¹s happening with ISO 14289. Say what you will about
PDF/UA, but within the 508 ICT refresh (for example), there is no mention
of later iterations of this standard. Despite that stipulation there is
currently work taking place to update 14289 to the new ISO 32000-2
specification. These are being updated to remain current with technology.

If a standard is intended to be ³stable,² it should adapt to reflect the
current situation. Extensions are *not* the answer. Optional adherance is
a waste of time, because who in their right mind would choose to do extra
work?

Thanks,
Jon Metz


PS: Thanks to Léonie for posting a link to her original thread for
context, and thanks to Steve Faulkner for posting this on Twitter so I
could see it.

On 8/20/15, 3:26 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Léonie Watson"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

>From: Ron [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
>Sent: 20 August 2015 19:19
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>I¹m not proposing a one-off to deal with a design desire. I¹m suggesting
>that if we add guidance to WCAG for specific user groups that it should
>not be done in the form of an optional extension, but that to add such
>guidance to WCAG 2.1 would not mean that we needed to update the existing
>guidance from WCAG 2.0.
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>I¹m not sure I understand your position. You don¹t think we should
>continue to evolve WCAG at all, or you don¹t think the optional
>expansions is the right approach?
>
>
>
>
>
>The long term proposal from WAI is to replace WCAG (and bits of UAAG and
>ATAG) with a completely new set of guidelines, currently being referred
>to as WAI 3.0. There is little/no information about what these guidelines
>might actually look like though.
>
>
>
>
>
>Léonie.
>
>
>
>--
>
>Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>