General explainer on AAA

[bruce-usab]

From conversation on call, 6 Nov next draft warrants a new section providing an overview or introduction to AAA as distinct from A/AA. This could probably be modeled after “SC problematic for closed functionally”.

Rationale / Background

From WCAG (§5.2.1, Note 2), with AAA there is a serious caveat.

It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA success criteria for some content.

The most frequent reason¹ for an SC to be at AAA is that there are known web technologies for which the SC is not feasible. By addressing AAA SC, there is an implication that AAA SC are generally applicable to non-web technologies, but that is not correct. It is useful to have the the AAA guidance, but a new introductory section would serve to highlight the caution needed when applying WCAG success criteria to non-web ICT.

Footnotes

1. Please see WCAG 2.x Priority levels discussion tally by levels. 100% of A/AA SC apply to all web technologies, but only 13% of AAA SC have this characteristic. ↩

[bruce-usab]

I volunteer to take a first pass at this, but please 👍 if you think this a worthy issue to address, or 👎 if I am just making up work. Also, please use this issue discussion thread to help refine the problem statement.

[maryjom]

@bruce-usab It would be great if you could take a first pass. I think it is a worthwhile section to have that can set the tone regarding AAA Criteria conformance for non-web technologies.

[GreggVan]

I agree-- this should be a separate section that leads with quoting that caveat. It would be good to have a model for it as we dive into it (and a place to put our results)

[bruce-usab]

Note-to-self from TF conversation today: AGWG concluded that WCAG 2x success criteria (including AAA) are feasible (for web content) as that was part of implementation report and the Candidate Recommendation process. This process included testing with, and confirmation of support by, at least two real-world (i.e., commercially available, or open source) user agents (i.e., assistive technology and browsers).

The applicability of WCAG 2 SC to non-web content has not had similar formal vetting, and such an endeavor is not in scope for WCAG2ICT. WCAG2ICT requirements are drawn from the considerable experience of subject matter experts.

success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology-specific

The WCAG 2 SC are technology-specific to web content. The WCAG2ICT section on closed ICT includes only some examples where the SC (as written) might be infeasible for non-web content. The majority¹ of AAA SC are not applicable to a range of non-web content. The majority¹ of AAA SC are not supported by available assistive technology (in the context of non-web content).

Footnotes

1. We will need a tally at some point. I am guessing that it is a majority but it might be fewer than half of the AAA SC which are particularly problematic. ↩ ↩²

[GreggVan]

@bruce-usab Correct.

but I would add some conditionals to it.

AGWG concluded that WCAG 2x success criteria (including AAA) are feasible (for some types of content and some types of sites with some web technology) as that was part of implementation report and the Candidate Recommendation process. But for AAA it did not judge whether or not it was applicable or possible for web content generally