Introduction
Michael Cooper, Web Accessibility Specialist, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)/MIT - https://www.w3.org/People/cooper/
Topics for this presentation:
- WCAG 2.x background and status
- WCAG 3 ("Silver") work
- Working on WCAG
WCAG 2.x background and status
WCAG 2.0
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 finalized in 2008
- Intended to be technology-neutral, future-proofed, testable
- Applicable to all web sites
- Multi-stakeholder development and strict conformance model made it suitable for adoption in many government and organization policies
WCAG 2.0 Conformance
- "Conformance" describes in detail how to apply the guidelines
- Applies to a collection of "web pages" which at the time was a more straightforward concept
- "Accessibility supported" concept allows developers to use approaches supported by the technologies their users have, but leaves ambiguity
conformance: satisfying all the requirements of a given standard, guideline or specification
accessibility supported: supported by users' assistive technologies as well as the accessibility features in browsers and other user agents
web page: a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent
Since WCAG 2.0 release
- Intended not to need updates for 20 years
- Interpretive guidance updated approximately every 6 months
- Stability for policy adoption led to reluctance to change the core guidance
Emerging Needs
- Accessibility support and an aging definition of web page can make guidelines challenging to apply
- As technology evolved, some situations are not clearly addressed by the guidelines
- Accessibility on mobile devices emerged as a more important need than predicted in WCAG 2.0
- @@examples of stuff from mobile note
- Concerns raised that WCAG 2.0 did not sufficiently meet needs of some user groups, notably users with cognitive or learning disabilities, and user with low vision
- @@examples of stuff from content usable
- @@examples of stuff from LV note
WCAG 2.1
- Decision taken in 2016 to create 2.1 version to add new Success Criteria
- Other efforts worldwide raised priority of a rapid update
- WCAG 2.1 completed June 2018
- In the standards world this is a very fast timeline
- Added 17 new Success Criteria, of over 70 initially proposed
- Completing Understanding and Techniques took another year
WCAG 2.2
- Release of WCAG 2.1 at the time it was was important to many entities
- Many Success Criteria that were considered important could not be included for various reasons, particularly ones addresssing the needs of users with cognitive or learning disabilities
- Testability
- Universal applicability
- Complexity
- Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities provides supplemental guidance beyond the requirements of WCAG
WCAG 2.2 Status
- Work on WCAG 2.2 began as soon as WCAG 2.1 was completed
- Refined requirements for Success Criteria and working process to improve coverage and quality
- Less new Success Criteria will be added, currently expecting between 5 and 10
- It is expected to include the most critical guidelines to meet the needs of users with cognitive or learning disabilities, and users with low vision, which fit within the 2.x framework
- As of July 2020, the Working Group has completed consideration of potential new Success Criteria and is now refining ones that made the first cut
- Planned to be finalized as a W3C Recommendation by the end of 2020, though is a couple months behind schedule
Questions? Discussion on WCAG 2
WCAG 3 ("Silver") work
WCAG 3.0
- W3C Accessibility Guidelines
- Formerly code-named "Silver"
WCAG 3 Goals
- Update guidelines to better address user needs and accommodate new technologies
- Incorporate tool guidance with authoring guidance to avoid the "accessibility support" challenge of WCAG 2
- Define clearer testing procedures and allow for multiple approaches
- Meet the needs of policies while being updated more frequently than WCAG 2
- Define ways to claim conformance for different units than "web page(s)"
- Reduce reading complexity where possible
- Base guidance on research where feasible and emphasize importance of future research
Key guideline content needs
- Better address needs of users with cognitive or learning disabilities
- Better address needs of users with low vision
- Better address accessibility on various devices
- Framework should address a wider variety of technologies including ones that don't exist yet
WCAG 3 Development
- Design plan included user research, analysis, consider and prototype structures, develop content, and maintain
- Identify the various roles of stakeholders who would use or be impacted by the guidelines
- Research uses of WCAG 2 and emerging needs
- Document requirements https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/
- Prototypes possible structures
WCAG 3 Current Structure Proposal
- Functional outcomes to meet user needs
- Guidelines describe an overall requirement
- Methods describe various ways to meet the guideline, according to technology and context
- Tests describe clear ways to verify the methods have been met
WCAG 3 Conformance
- WCAG 3 will approach conformance differently from WCAG 2
- Goals are to support:
- Various and emerging technologies
- Multiple ways of evaluation
- Simple and complex, large and small sites
- Currently conformance is expected to apply to user tasks rather than web pages
- Conformance grades allow varying levels of perfection but require that the needs of all user groups are met
WCAG 3 Completion Plan
- First Public Working Draft
- Review Drafts
- Finalization: CR & PR
- Recommendation
Questions? Discussion on WCAG 3
Working on WCAG
Challenges for WCAG 3
- Conformance
- New technologies
- Maintainability with stability
- Reliable testability
- Compatibility with policy requirements and enforcement
- Evaluation of complex sites
- User testing
Groups Working on Accessibility Guidelines
Ways to follow the work
- Review Public Working Drafts and submit comments
- Follow latest additions in Editors' draft of WCAG 2.2 and Editors' draft of WCAG 3
- AG and Silver wikis https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/ and https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/
- AG list archives https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/ and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agwg-comments/
Ways to Contribute
GitHub is used in development of our documents. You can review documents (in raw HTML code), file issues to request the Working Group examine something, or file a "pull request" to submit edited-in-place suggestions.
Working with AG WG
- Multiple modes of participation encouraged: teleconferences, file or comment on GitHub issues, email discussion, wiki or other online shared document editing tools, propose content in GitHub
- Times of teleconferences currently work best for Europe and the Americas, but calls happen at other times when there is sufficient interest
- AG WG has many stakeholders with different opinions, discussions can be challenging
- Chairs moderate discussions to keep focused
- Participants agree to follow W3C's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
W3C Work Mode
- Consensus process
- "Consensus" instead of votes means everyone hopefully can accept the group decision
- Takes lots of discussion but result is more likely to be taken up
- Stakeholder diversity
- Multiple points of view are critical to achieve a result that works for everyone
- Stakeholder groups are not monolithic so multiple representatives of a given group is important
- Listening openly to other perspectives is important to achieve consensus
- The Working Group is large but still welcomes additional voices (and worker-bees)
