Draft Responses to Dec WD Issues 211

On behalf of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group:

Thank-you for your thoughtful comments and observations, which this Working Group has reviewed. Some comments inline:

All of the new 10 proposed COGA Success Criteria are important elements for people with learning disabilities and should be kept. The extensive descriptions which are provided in the GitHub comments are excellent. We strongly encourage you to keep all of the 10 proposed SC. We appreciate the Plain English Summary."

Thank you. Currently, some of the proposed new Success Criteria (SC) you have commented on appear to be on track for final inclusion to the WCAG 2.1 publication, however there have been some changes to our Drafts that you may not be aware of, and some of the SC you mention have been deferred at this time.

Even though the SC that are not being included in the current draft have not yet advanced forward in the process, these proposed SC are being marked as "defer" to ensure review at the next opportunity (potentially a WCAG 2.2, or something similar going forward), and the Working Group recognizes the importance of the issues driving these proposals. Deferral is not rejection, and many of these proposed SC simply did not meet the maturity level required to advance forward at this time.

Additionally, it is during the Public Comment phase that external observers also have the opportunity to review our work, so that the Working Group can solicit and address comments and concerns from the wider community.

<quote> We did consider each of these and placed them in 2 Priority groups: (1) First priority: • Support Personalization (Success Criterion 1.3.4) • Timeouts (Success Criterion 2.2.6) • Familiar Design (minimum) (Success Criterion 3.2.7) • Extra Symbols (Success Criterion 3.1.9) • Minimize User Errors (Success Criterion 3.3.7) • Provide Support (Success Criterion 3.3.9) • Undo (Success Criterion 3.3.8) • Plain Language (Success Criterion 3.1.7)

(2) Second priority: • Manageable Blocks (Success Criterion 3.1.8) • Interruptions (minimum) (Success Criterion 2.2.8) </quote>

As you may be aware, WCAG 2.0 currently uses three levels of conformance (A, AA, AAA) which are defined at https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head. Currently, most legislation around the planet uses WCAG as their compliance standard, and require (mandate) conformance to Success Criteria at the A and AA levels, while encouraging conformance to AAA Success Criteria when appropriate.

We have added the current proposed conformance level(s) to your list below (while also noting relevant changes to the current Draft Spec, found at https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21).

(1) First priority:

Support Personalization (Success Criterion 1.3.4) (IMPORTANT NOTE: This SC has changed, and has now been divided into 2 individual SC:

Success Criterion 1.3.4 Purpose of Controls (AA) https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls, and Success Criterion 1.3.5 Contextual Information (AAA) https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contextual-information) Timeouts (Success Criterion 2.2.6) (IMPORTANT NOTE: This SC has changed number, and is now Success Criterion 2.2.8 Timeouts (AAA) https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#timeouts)

Familiar Design (minimum) (Success Criterion 3.2.7) (Response: Was proposed at Level (A), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #49 (comment))

Extra Symbols (Success Criterion 3.1.9) (Response: Was proposed at Level (AA), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #50 (comment))

Minimize User Errors (Success Criterion 3.3.7) (Response: Was proposed at Level (A), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #13 (comment))

Provide Support (Success Criterion 3.3.9) (Response: Was proposed at Level (AA), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #32 (comment), #274 (comment))

Undo (Success Criterion 3.3.8) (Response: Was proposed at Level (A), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #38 (comment))

Plain Language (Success Criterion 3.1.7) (Response: Was proposed at Level (A), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #42 (comment))

(2) Second priority:

Manageable Blocks (Success Criterion 3.1.8) (Response: Was proposed at Level (AA), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. #24 (comment))

Interruptions (minimum) (Success Criterion 2.2.8) (Response:Was proposed at Level (AAA), however the Working Group has not reached consensus on this proposed SC so it is deferred for future consideration. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#timeouts)

While many Success Criteria have not reached consensus, at present there are still several Success Criteria proposed that will offer benefit to users with cognitive disabilities. These include: 1.3.4 Identify Common Purpose (AA) 1.3.5 Contextual Information (AAA) 1.4.10 Reflow (AA) 1.4.12 Text Spacing (AA) 2.2.6 Timeouts (AAA) 2.4.12 Label in Name (A) 2.5.3 Target Size (AA) 2.5.4 Target Size (Enhanced) (AAA) 3.2.6 Status Changes (AA)