Do WCAG/WAI need to considere feasibility ? #171
5 participants
|
Hi Goetsu,
Otherwise we can also have a more clear statement that WCAG 2.0 will not
be replaced by 2.1 and that only 3.0 will be considered as a new version
that replace 2.0.
<Personal Opinion>
WCAG 2.0 *WILL* supersede (i.e. replace) WCAG 2.0 at the W3C as the most
current Accessibility Guidance from the W3C once WCAG 2.1 is published.
Whether or not countries and/or individual organizations will do the same
at the same time we publish 2.1 will, of course, be left up to those
countries and organizations to determine. Whether or not those entities
will wait for "Silver" (aka 3.0) is a decision that *THEY* will make, not
the W3C, although my suspicion is that most countries will likely choose
that option. In that scenario, all of the new SC that advance during the
WCAG 2.1 >> WCAG 2.2 >> (will there be a 2.3? who knows?) work effort will
likely be looked at as "optional" from a legal/compliance perspective
today/upon publication, BUT, they will also be the signal that entities
should expect these to have a full-force-of-law status in different
countries/territories "soon" - i.e. once those countries adopt the new(er)
standard. That will provide the "window" of time you suggest will be needed
when you state, "...time for discover, understand, teach and see how they
can achieve..."
Regarding "feasibility" (or as I am thinking of it, implementability at
scale), I share some of your concerns as well, and as the Working Group
reviews the proposed SC that have come forward (along with when we start to
process feedback from the larger community), I for one will be watching
that quite closely. Having many years of working with larger organizations,
where the accessibility stakeholder is but one person around the table, I
share your concern that if we try and impose *too* heavy a lift on content
authors, they will simply ignore, or "refuse" to address individual SC.
We've seen examples like that in the past, where the Government of Canada
(for example) has explicitly exempted sites from:
Complex maps (text alternatives)
WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text content
Live Video Captions (closed captions) WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion 1.2.4
Captions (Live)
Audio Description (prerecorded video) except where the video provides
information related to health and safety of Canadians WCAG 2.0 Success
Criterion 1.2.5 Audio Description
(source: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601#appB)
Whether or not this is "fair", or if it still leaves some Canadians with
inaccessible content is a real issue. But balanced against the time, cost
and effort to meet these requirements, the Government of Canada ruled
above. For this reason then, I think we as a larger group need to be
metered in our requirements, and honestly come to a point where the needs
of both content users AND content creators are met equitably and fairly,
while still advancing our larger goal and mission.
Personally, I am all for "shooting for the stars", as long as we all
recognize that sometimes that may only get us to the moon, but hey!,
getting to the moon is an accomplishment in its own right, right?
</Personal Opinion>
JF
…
|
|
I do agree. At risk of offending some of the people that have clearly worked very hard defining all the additional SC, it feels like because there has been so long since any new SC were considered, everyone is trying to add so much to this version its just not feasible for developers. It's already very difficult to convince stakeholders to implement WCAG 2.0 without an explicit requirement from the client to do so. This will become hugely more difficult with WCAG 2.1 and I'm concerned that in an attempt to make WCAG better, fewer sites will actually bother with it at all, which is obviously worse. |
|
The short answer (IMO) is yes, WCAG does need to consider feasibility as a key factor. Just remember where WCAG 2.0 was in 2006, when I first looked at the draft I (insert expletive here) a brick. I'm not saying it's in the same state, but two things happened during the review process:
The 'understanding' and techniques have not been drafted yet (at least for the SCs I'm managing), that obviously needs to happen and it might allay some fears then. However, the main things is that we need to identify the use-cases & scenarios which are reasonable and should not be covered (or should be covered when they are not). Some of the SCs are plugging interface gaps/changes since 2008 and are fairly straightforward (e.g. contrast for graphics). Some are extending the concept of adaptation by users (e.g. linearisation & adapting text). Some overlap with usability fairly heavily (e.g. some of the COGA SCs). Overall the new SCs should not add more of a burden than the 2.0 ones, apart from there just being more of them. Where you see undue burden without a solution, please do comment. |
Hi,
I just want to open a debate here.
First I want to make clear that I think most of new guidelines are perfectly logical in term of users needs.
But I'm really concerned about WCAG 2.1 setting the bar way too high and way to fast in term of feasibility for dev / design / project manager.
I mean vast majority of people are still struggling to implement basic WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
From what I see in my professional activity, I'm 100% confident that some of the new level A and AA SC will :
I know that WAI itself do not force anyone to implement WCAG but laws do (or try to) and will at some point enforce 2.1
Maybe we can't have a more progressive approach when level of new SC are chosen like setting them in AAA for 2.1, then AA in 2.2, and having a public roadmap clearly specifying that. This way, people will have time for discover, understand, teach and see how they can achieve them knowing that at some point they will have to do it.
Otherwise we can also have a more clear statement that WCAG 2.0 will not be replaced by 2.1 and that only 3.0 will be considered as a new version that replace 2.0.