WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19

for

Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)

From: Laura Carlson
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2015 12:34PM
Subject: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
No previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'WebAIM Discussion List'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS 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

From: Léonie Watson
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2015 2:49PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 20 August 2015 19:35
> 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.

Good point. That could happen of course. In the scheme of things I'm not too worried about legislation though. I am worried that if these extensions are optional, it sends out the message that accessibility for those user groups is optional.

>
> 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
>

I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the entities responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to create standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible information, not to harmonise those standards into legislation.

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

I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be the case though.

Léonie.


--
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson

From: Laura Carlson
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2015 7:43AM
Subject: Re: (off list)WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Leonie,

On 8/20/15, Léonie Watson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> 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.
>
> Good point. That could happen of course. In the scheme of things I'm not too
> worried about legislation though. I am worried that if these extensions are
> optional, it sends out the message that accessibility for those user groups
> is optional.

Those who are serious about accessibility would require the extensions.

>> 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
>
> I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the entities
> responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to create standards that
> equip designers and developers with the best possible information, not to
> harmonise those standards into legislation.

From my perspective it a matter of legal entities who have been and
are currently referencing WCAG 2.0 [1].

In addition many entities especially smaller companies and
organizations do not have the accessibility expertise to write their
own accessibility standard. My view is the W3C taking the lead in
writing accessibility standards is most welcome. Every company or
organization in every country shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
For instance WCAG 2.0 serves as the standard for the University of
Minnesota.

>> From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to be
>> faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
>
> I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be the case
> though.

Here is a real example: the Cognitive Task Force Chair, began
recruiting members in July 2013. Since then that Task Force has been
doing critical research and development (R&D) work [2]. For the "WCAG
Cognitive Extension" and the "Understanding WCAG Cognitive Extension"
the charter states:

* First Working Draft: November 2015
* Candidate Recommendation: October 2017
* Proposed Recommendation: January 2018
* Recommendation: April 2018

I haven't seen a timeline for the Low Vision TF. But if we apply that
type of time allocation, with recruiting members beginning August 2015
and then commencing R&D, it seems milestones would map out to:

* First Working Draft: December 2017
* Candidate Recommendation: November 2019
* Proposed Recommendation: February 2020
* Recommendation: May 2020

The end date of the draft charter is July 31, 2018. Realistically, I
don't know how Low Vision First Working Drafts could be mandated in a
WCAG 2.1 ending on that same date, as those documents wouldn't be
finalized recommendations for another 2 years.

So the question is how would you speed up the process? Leonie, will
you join the task force to help?

Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/settlements/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/#work

--
Laura L. Carlson

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2015 9:24AM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

"Our responsibility is to create standards that equip designers and
developers with the best possible information..."

Leonie, is this written somewhere in W3C requiring documentation? "best
possible information" would be correct - but then, that this standards body
creates specs solely for the use of those two roles (designers and
developers)?

Having worked in standards bodies (ISO, ANSI/INCITS, W3C) developing
standards and then having the responsibility of implementing those
standards - I would be very surprised to learn that this is the case at the
W3C.

Perhaps it is this misconception of the audiences for technical standards
that is the root disconnect that causes such pain in the WAI charters.

Suggesting that web standards are only going to be used by those two roles
is akin to suggesting that electrical standards are only applicable to
those that connect the wires in the building - and not additionally for
city planners, architects, general contractors, inspectors, supply
vendors, etc.

That would help explain, at least in part, some of the unpleasantness and
vehemence I see in the AC forum concerning WAI work.

Katie
On Aug 20, 2015 3:49 PM, "Léonie Watson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> > From: Laura Carlson [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: 20 August 2015 19:35
> > 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.
>
> Good point. That could happen of course. In the scheme of things I'm not
> too worried about legislation though. I am worried that if these extensions
> are optional, it sends out the message that accessibility for those user
> groups is optional.
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the entities
> responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to create standards
> that equip designers and developers with the best possible information, not
> to harmonise those standards into legislation.
>
> > From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to be
> > faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
>
> I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be the case
> though.
>
> Léonie.
>
>
> --
> Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson
>
>
>
> > > > >

From: Léonie Watson
Date: Mon, Aug 24 2015 3:10AM
Subject: Re: (off list)WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 21 August 2015 14:44
> Those who are serious about accessibility would require the extensions.

That's likely, yes. It's the people that don't take accessibility as seriously that are likely to seize on the "optional" status of the extensions though. Given that the extensions are mostly focused on requirements for specific user groups, I'm just not comfortable with the notion they might be considered optional.

>
> > I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the
> > entities responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to create
> > standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible
> > information, not to harmonise those standards into legislation.
[...]

> My view is the W3C taking the lead in writing accessibility standards is most
> welcome. Every company or organization in every country shouldn't have to
> reinvent the wheel.

We're in agreement then. I perhaps didn't make my distinction between a standard, and a law or policy that references it, clear enough. Per my comment above, I think the W3C should create standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible information. I don't believe they should be involved in the law or policy making processes that may (or may not) choose to reference those standards though.

>
> >> From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to be
> >> faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
> >
> > I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be the
> > case though.
>
> Here is a real example: the Cognitive Task Force Chair, began recruiting
> members in July 2013. Since then that Task Force has been doing critical
> research and development (R&D) work [2]. For the "WCAG Cognitive
> Extension" and the "Understanding WCAG Cognitive Extension"
> the charter states:
>
> * First Working Draft: November 2015
> * Candidate Recommendation: October 2017
> * Proposed Recommendation: January 2018
> * Recommendation: April 2018
>
> I haven't seen a timeline for the Low Vision TF. But if we apply that type of
> time allocation, with recruiting members beginning August 2015 and then
> commencing R&D, it seems milestones would map out to:
>
> * First Working Draft: December 2017
> * Candidate Recommendation: November 2019
> * Proposed Recommendation: February 2020
> * Recommendation: May 2020
>
> The end date of the draft charter is July 31, 2018. Realistically, I don't know
> how Low Vision First Working Drafts could be mandated in a WCAG 2.1
> ending on that same date, as those documents wouldn't be finalized
> recommendations for another 2 years.
>

My understanding is that W3C thinks extensions would be quicker to create than WCAG 2.1. My theory is that WCAG 2.1 could be published in whatever amount of time it takes to complete the extensions - because I'm only suggesting a difference in the way the new requirements are packaged, not a change to the amount of work to be done.

The extension timeline does raise another question though. It is possible the WCAG WG will not exist by the time the cognitive extension is finished. The draft WCAG charter (1] currently says:

"The UAAG and ATAG Working Group charters are expected to expire in one year. A new Working Group that addresses uses cases, user needs, and guidelines
for content, user agents, and authoring tools may be chartered to take the place of all three groups, in which case the WCAG Working Group would end its
charter early."

This suggests that whatever happens, neither the extensions or WCAG 2.1 would be published by the WCAG WG. Either could be done under the auspices of this new WG though.

Which brings us back to the original question... Should the WCAG charter imply that accessibility for certain user groups is optional?


Léonie.

--
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson

From: Laura Carlson
Date: Mon, Aug 24 2015 6:34AM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Leonie and all,

Thank you for your reply.

My take is that WCAG 2.0 is going the extension route to make WCAG
*more* accessible for people with disabilities. Those who care, will
do the right thing and require extensions and that includes legal
entities. I suspect that legal entities who have been and are
currently referencing WCAG 2.0 (examples:[1]) will likely to continue
to do so by requiring WCAG 2.0 +extensions. Their action is welcome.
The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) have shown by actions that organizations
and companies with access barriers on websites and in learning
materials run afoul of the law.

Those who don't take accessibility seriously won't care, extensions or not.

Again, please consider joining the Low Vision Task Force.

Kindest regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/settlements/
--
Laura L. Carlson

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mon, Aug 24 2015 7:54AM
Subject: Re: (off list)WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19
← Previous message | Next message →

> We're in agreement then. I perhaps didn't make my distinction between a standard, and a law or policy that references it, clear enough. Per my comment above, I think the W3C should create standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible information. I don't believe they should be involved in the law or policy making processes that may (or may not) choose to reference those standards though.

I agree that the W3C itself should not be involved in the law making process. However, as a distinction, I personally feel it is important for people of other standards making bodies such as the US Access Board to be part of the discussions at the W3C. Harmonization, timing, and a working relationship with the people involved is important to ensure that both parties understand the implications of making guidelines into required standards.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Léonie Watson
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:10 AM
To: 'Laura Carlson'
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] (off list) Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19

> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 21 August 2015 14:44
> Those who are serious about accessibility would require the extensions.

That's likely, yes. It's the people that don't take accessibility as seriously that are likely to seize on the "optional" status of the extensions though. Given that the extensions are mostly focused on requirements for specific user groups, I'm just not comfortable with the notion they might be considered optional.

>
> > I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the
> > entities responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to
> > create standards that equip designers and developers with the best
> > possible information, not to harmonise those standards into legislation.
[...]

> My view is the W3C taking the lead in writing accessibility standards
> is most welcome. Every company or organization in every country
> shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.

We're in agreement then. I perhaps didn't make my distinction between a standard, and a law or policy that references it, clear enough. Per my comment above, I think the W3C should create standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible information. I don't believe they should be involved in the law or policy making processes that may (or may not) choose to reference those standards though.

>
> >> From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to
> >> be faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
> >
> > I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be
> > the case though.
>
> Here is a real example: the Cognitive Task Force Chair, began
> recruiting members in July 2013. Since then that Task Force has been
> doing critical research and development (R&D) work [2]. For the "WCAG
> Cognitive Extension" and the "Understanding WCAG Cognitive Extension"
> the charter states:
>
> * First Working Draft: November 2015
> * Candidate Recommendation: October 2017
> * Proposed Recommendation: January 2018
> * Recommendation: April 2018
>
> I haven't seen a timeline for the Low Vision TF. But if we apply that
> type of time allocation, with recruiting members beginning August 2015
> and then commencing R&D, it seems milestones would map out to:
>
> * First Working Draft: December 2017
> * Candidate Recommendation: November 2019
> * Proposed Recommendation: February 2020
> * Recommendation: May 2020
>
> The end date of the draft charter is July 31, 2018. Realistically, I
> don't know how Low Vision First Working Drafts could be mandated in a
> WCAG 2.1 ending on that same date, as those documents wouldn't be
> finalized recommendations for another 2 years.
>

My understanding is that W3C thinks extensions would be quicker to create than WCAG 2.1. My theory is that WCAG 2.1 could be published in whatever amount of time it takes to complete the extensions - because I'm only suggesting a difference in the way the new requirements are packaged, not a change to the amount of work to be done.

The extension timeline does raise another question though. It is possible the WCAG WG will not exist by the time the cognitive extension is finished. The draft WCAG charter (1] currently says:

"The UAAG and ATAG Working Group charters are expected to expire in one year. A new Working Group that addresses uses cases, user needs, and guidelines for content, user agents, and authoring tools may be chartered to take the place of all three groups, in which case the WCAG Working Group would end its charter early."

This suggests that whatever happens, neither the extensions or WCAG 2.1 would be published by the WCAG WG. Either could be done under the auspices of this new WG though.

Which brings us back to the original question... Should the WCAG charter imply that accessibility for certain user groups is optional?


Léonie.

--
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson

From: Sean Keegan
Date: Thu, Aug 27 2015 10:18AM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 24
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Angela,

A few tools that may suit your need for checking in the browser include:

- Chrome Color Contrast Analyzer (
http://accessibility.oit.ncsu.edu/tools/color-contrast-chrome/)

- Firefox WCAG Color Contrast Analyzer (
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/wcag-contrast-checker/)

- Firefox Juicy Studio Accessibility Toolbar (
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/juicy-studio-accessibility-too/
)

I use all of them in different capacities, so I can't say one is the best.
I do like the WCAG Color Contrast Analyzer for its ability to demonstrate
basic types of color-blindness and show how that web page may be
interpreted with those filters. Good for demos.


Take care,
Sean


From: Angela French < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:29:13 +0000
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Contrast page checker?
> I've always found that interface really confusing visually. If I test
> this url: http://dev.sbctc.edu/_testing/test-template-errors.aspx the
> Summary seems to indicate that I have 16 contrast errors. But I don't know
> how to make it show where those contrast issues are. If I check the same
> page on achecker.ca I get zero contrast errors.
>
> Angela French
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 9:57 AM
> To: WebAim Forum ( = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = )
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Contrast page checker?
>
> http://wave.webaim.org includes both of those abilities if I understand
> you correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/26/15, 12:41 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Angela French"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> >Anyone know of a color contrast validator where you can put in the URL
> >and it will show the issues for the page (as opposed to entering the
> >color value in a tool like that on WebAIM?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >Angela French
> >Internet Specialist
> >Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
> >360-704-4316
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >www.checkoutacollege.com<http://www.checkoutacollege.com/>;
> >www.sbctc.edu<http://www.sbctc.edu/>;
> >
> >> >> >archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >>
>