- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:37:26 -0700
- To: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>
- Cc: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, Andrew Somers <Andy@generaltitles.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <3B11C236-C94D-4B71-A34F-E771FFC216C2@vanderheiden.us>
Absolutely Content authors can support that - but can’t be expected to provide it without creating their now ad-hoc user agent. But personalization is key. And I think 'hyper-personalization" or "individualization" is where we really want to end up someday Personalization = there are choices provided to user and they can pick what fits them best 'hyper-personalization" or "individualization" = user has complete control of the interface (everything they experience in using something) Anyone interested in this ping me gregg ------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden gregg@vanderheiden.us > On Aug 7, 2023, at 12:32 PM, Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com> wrote: > > When you have two groups each of whom benefits from their condition which harms another group, the only solution I can think of is personalization. Then everyone gets what they want. > > Sheri > --- > Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer <https://whatisworkspaceone.com/boxer> > On August 7, 2023 at 2:30:11 PM CDT, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us> wrote: >> >> !! External Email >> Sure >> >> First — we all know that when you get to the boundary conditions things get ambiguous. >> >> If the rule is 4.5 contrast — is it really true that 4.49999999 is a failure and the person should be sued because their page is non-compliant? >> >> That is - as you approach the boundaries - you end up with things that are technically accessibility or not but it is not in fact any difference between one side of the line and just over the line (except that one fails) >> >> The key point here is that WCAG doesnt make anything accessible (e.g. EVERYONE can use it) >> WCAG is only a standard for "MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE ACCESSIBILITY" to conform. And pages that pass - conform - but are not necessarily accessible to everyone (in fact we know that they are not) >> >> Second - you asked for an example where conforming sometimes makes it less accessible >> >> All of us I'm doing this for a while will remember that every time we talk about high contrast, we will get notes from people who say the high contrast is their problem. That they would like to see a requirement for low contrast. It's hard to say that a page will have high contrast and low contrast at the same time unless we put a contrast control on every page so that you can turn it up and down on the page. So whenever a page passes our high contrast rule, it will be less accessible for some other people. >> >> There are other examples but they're somewhat complicated without seeing them and they run back 15 years so I don't even know where to find the examples. I just remember in working with people on sites that occasionally we had to work very hard to figure out a way that would technically pass with keg without making it worse. And in a couple cases we ended up following the letter of the WCAG but not the spirit of the WCAG in order to come up with a page that met the spirit of WCAG >> >> >> T >> >> >> >> >> >> gregg >> >> ------------------------------ >> Gregg Vanderheiden >> gregg@vanderheiden.us >> >> >> >>> On Aug 7, 2023, at 5:51 AM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote: >>> >>> With reference to: "And for almost every WCAG rule (including 1.1) — >>> I have found examples of pages that — if they follow the SC strictly >>> are LESS accessible —— or rather there are more accessible ways to do >>> something that do not conform to a success criterion". >>> Please can you provide more context / reasoning and examples? >>> Else, this statement seems to strike at the very core of WCAG. >>> I can probably understand that strictly following an SC may do little >>> for some PWD groups while it helps other groups immensely. >>> I can also understand the above statement , in situations where an SC >>> is marked as "satisfied" based on the use of one of the sufficient >>> techniques listed for the SC ... but not the most appropriate one. >>> That can be certainly problematic. >>> When there are multiple sufficient techniques, the documentation >>> states in which situation a particular one is recommended. >>> So, are there other examples / reasons for that statement? >>> Thanks, >>> Sailesh >>> >>> >>> On 8/4/23, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us <mailto:gregg@vanderheiden.us>> wrote: >>>> Please do not try to create success criteria (or their equivalent in 3.) >>>> by example — or borderline cases. >>>> >>>> With all of the contrast measures you will find color combinations that pass >>>> that are horrendous. >>>> >>>> And for almost every WCAG rule (including 1.1) — I have found examples of >>>> pages that — if they follow the SC strictly are LESS accessible —— or >>>> rather there are more accessible ways to do something that do not conform to >>>> a success criterion. >>>> >>>> I will also remind us all — that for some people with reading disabilities — >>>> high contrast is the opposite of what they want. And the text that meets >>>> WCAG is less readable to them than low contrast (which is more readable by >>>> others). >>>> >>>> So the fact that something is more or less readable - or certain color >>>> combinations that pass are not signs that something is bad — or everything >>>> we propose will be bad. >>>> Let’s see some research - that has been conducted on a number of people >>>> with low vision. And a study with color blindness (and studies with >>>> both) and see which measures are better overall. And the colors should >>>> be randomly selected — and not include something right on the border >>>> (though if a sample is big enough they can be used as a covariate). >>>> >>>> >>>> Lets work off of >>>> - something that is based on studies of readability of text by people with >>>> low vision - and dyslexia - and colorblindness >>>> - lets not do this based on anecdotes or people with no visual/reading >>>> disabilities. >>>> - and not on anecdotes or edge case - but on the whole of the colorspace — >>>> or random sampling of it >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> gregg >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Gregg Vanderheiden >>>> gregg@vanderheiden.us >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 3, 2023, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Somers <Andy@GeneralTitles.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Jon, I very much value your feedback on this issue. >>>>> >>>>> I’m going to follow up with additional questions when I get back to the >>>>> studio. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Andy’s iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 3, 2023, at 17:10, Jon Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The WCAG contrast failures found in the cited Tourism document such as >>>>>> white on red and white on gray and light blue on white are difficult for >>>>>> me to read. The white on red is also almost painful for me to read. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am thankful for a current WCAG 2.0 contrast model that has correctly >>>>>> flagged these combinations of colors that provide problematic contrast. >>>>>> While the model is not perfect most of the time for me it seems to flag >>>>>> things that are difficult for me to read. I agree that we need to evolve >>>>>> the model or start over with changes in technology – but simply removing >>>>>> something that does have benefit with a void is not something that would >>>>>> be helpful to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jonathan >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Andrew Somers <andy@generaltitles.com> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 6:04 PM >>>>>> To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> >>>>>> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: CFC - Publish WCAG2ICT First Public Working Draft >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 3, 2023, at 11:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk >>>>>> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Continued promotion" or "dealing with the reality that WCAG has been >>>>>> either enshrined into, or referenced by, legislation around the world >>>>>> right at this point, so we're having to make do with the less-than-ideal >>>>>> situation out here in the real world"... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Patrick. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, 1.4.3/1.4.11 specifically are not things that should be >>>>>> incorporated into statute law as they stand. That they have become such >>>>>> is setting actual accessibility backwards. While not good as voluntary >>>>>> guidelines, as elevated into “law” becames bad law. The 508 has >>>>>> reasonable exceptions, unfortunately the EU does not, and it needs to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Something you may find amusing from a WCAG trash-panda perspective, is >>>>>> this guidebook on accessibility >>>>>> <https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf> >>>>>> This booklet on accessibility from the British Tourist Authority, >>>>>> England’s national tourist board, This accessibility guide was created in >>>>>> 2011: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The part that is amusing is not only that it fails WCAG 2.0 in areas, but >>>>>> how those fails are properly passes with a perceptually accurate model, >>>>>> such as APCA (the fact it’s a pdf notwithstanding). >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s an example from the inside front cover, the text is white on >>>>>> red—for color deficient vision this is ideal—yet WCAG 2 insists that >>>>>> black on red is better. >>>>>> >>>>>> For comparison I created a matching version with black text—Black against >>>>>> red is notably worse, especially for common color vision deficiencies. >>>>>> WCAG 2 contrast presents conditions that are harmful to readability, >>>>>> particularly for those with color insensitive vision. This has led to a >>>>>> massive misunderstanding in the accessibility community as a result, with >>>>>> promotion of the mistaken belief that WCAG 2.x contrast is “doing >>>>>> something special” for CVD. It isn’t, at least not in a good way. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not an isolated case, and it is one worth noting. >>>>>> >>>>>> <image001.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patrick H. Lauke >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >>>>>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux >>>>>> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sailesh Panchang >>> Customer Success Strategist and Principal Accessibility Consultant >>> Deque Systems Inc >>> 381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, >>> VA 20170 >>> Mobile: 571-344-1765 >> >> >> !! External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Received on Monday, 7 August 2023 19:38:09 UTC