– DRAFT –
WCAG3 Equity Subgroup

opinions differ.

<jeanne> agenda+ Identify known challenges

<jeanne> agenda+ Identify outstanding questions that need to be answered

take up ietm 1

https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Equity-Framework

s/ <jeanne> agenda+ Identify known challenges

s/<jeanne> agenda+ Identify outstanding questions that need to be answered

<MichaelC> challenge: technical solutions that support one group make things harder for another group

<MichaelC> challenge: AG WG does not have the comprehensive expertise across disabilities to develop guidelines that are fully inclusive

<MichaelC> question: how do we incorporate normative guidelines content that we don´t ourselves have expertise on?

Known Challenges ==

Absent Personalization, technical solutions that support one group make things harder for another group.

How do we incorporate normative guidelines content that we don´t ourselves have expertise on?

Differing needs within the same community. Caption Key https://dcmp.org/learn/captioningkey notes the following, which will need to be decided upon: "A re-occurring question about captioning is whether captions should be verbatim or edited. Among the advocates for verbatim are organizations of deaf and hard of hearing persons who do not believe that their right for equal access to

information and dialogue is served by any deletion or change of words. Supporters of edited captions include parents and teachers who call for the editing of captions on the grounds that the reading rates necessitated by verbatim captions can be so high that captions are almost impossible to follow."

Comprehension is more important for understandable for what remains available over time.

Complexity in scoring and the conformance model. Not as easy to score as WCAG2x true/false.

The problem of small sites with small resources can have an impact on uptake. A potential solution is to have different conformance models for different groups. For example, small business should meet Easy Checks and have an accessible framework. This has implications across different subgroups working on solutions.

Usability for a site at a given conformance level is approximately equivalent across disability groups.

NOTE: not sure how to measure that from a technological point of view. User Journey project and testing across functional needs could be a path forward.

Identify outstanding questions that need to be answered

<MichaelC> How do we incorporate guidance for functional needs for which we lack expertise in the group?

<MichaelC> How do we make WCAG conformance realistically adoptable for various organization types?

<MichaelC> How do we address circumstances where user groups have conflicting needs?

<laura> Maybe including more functional categories could get a better score and less functional categories would get a poorer score?

<MichaelC> How do we make usability of the guidelines themselves equitable across functional needs

<MichaelC> in service of ¨meta equity¨

Meaningful Involvement Proposal

<laura> Bye.

Note: Most of the discussion is in the Equity Framework document