Part of the Silver Research project of 2017-18 were interviews on Conformance with a small number of thought leaders from different aspects of accessibility industry. They were promised anonymity to encourage free comments. They were given a standard list of questions. They reached interesting and informative conclusions and directions for the future. Note that this was a small group of participants that were selected for their innovative and thoughtful thinking on broad accessibility issues.
One issue raised by the two US-based lawyers interviewed was the question of how success criteria were assigned to different levels and that "Testable" was included in the criteria of how the success criteria were assigned. One lawyer with Civil Rights experience was concerned that if a judge questioned the inclusion of testability, that there was a substantial risk that the WCAG regulations would be struck down. The lawyers interviewed strongly recommended that user needs be the basis of evaluating accessibility and testability not be included in any assignment of level of priority or severity.
A later concern that was raised during the Design Sprint from a US accessibility lawyer is that the current assignment of success criteria to the levels is not balanced by disability type. For example, the Deaf, deaf, and hearing impaired have only one A success criterion (1.2.2 captioning), 1 AA (1.2.4 Captions (Live) and all others are AAA. Any solution in WCAG3 should strive to treat all disabilities equally. One suggestion was to require a minimum level in each disability category.
I am raising this issue, because as we move into AG discussions of conformance, I do not want the research that was done to be forgotten. There are innovative solutions in the Silver Research and Silver Design Sprint that should not be lost because AG members naturally want to build on what is familiar. There is an opportunity for a transformative approach to conformance that can address important problems in accessibility. That should not be lost.
Part of the Silver Research project of 2017-18 were interviews on Conformance with a small number of thought leaders from different aspects of accessibility industry. They were promised anonymity to encourage free comments. They were given a standard list of questions. They reached interesting and informative conclusions and directions for the future. Note that this was a small group of participants that were selected for their innovative and thoughtful thinking on broad accessibility issues.
One issue raised by the two US-based lawyers interviewed was the question of how success criteria were assigned to different levels and that "Testable" was included in the criteria of how the success criteria were assigned. One lawyer with Civil Rights experience was concerned that if a judge questioned the inclusion of testability, that there was a substantial risk that the WCAG regulations would be struck down. The lawyers interviewed strongly recommended that user needs be the basis of evaluating accessibility and testability not be included in any assignment of level of priority or severity.
A later concern that was raised during the Design Sprint from a US accessibility lawyer is that the current assignment of success criteria to the levels is not balanced by disability type. For example, the Deaf, deaf, and hearing impaired have only one A success criterion (1.2.2 captioning), 1 AA (1.2.4 Captions (Live) and all others are AAA. Any solution in WCAG3 should strive to treat all disabilities equally. One suggestion was to require a minimum level in each disability category.
I am raising this issue, because as we move into AG discussions of conformance, I do not want the research that was done to be forgotten. There are innovative solutions in the Silver Research and Silver Design Sprint that should not be lost because AG members naturally want to build on what is familiar. There is an opportunity for a transformative approach to conformance that can address important problems in accessibility. That should not be lost.
In summary: