Re: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Hi Alistair,

No, I am not objecting to a 2.1 in 2018.

-- I am objecting to saying every x number of years - unless it is
reasonable for government to implement in laws (based on direct discussions
this WG will have with these individuals), and for organizations not to
'pass' on 2.1 "because 2.2 will be out on two or three years"

-- I am objecting to 2.1 passing on too many COGA SC, and pushing them off
to 2.2 or 3.0. We made a promise, 10 years ago to the individuals on this
working group who tried to provide  COGA SC at that time - that we really
would use the next version to get those SC and needs addressed. We made a
promise to the COGA community around the world as well. I do not want this
WG to lose their faith in our promises

-- I am objecting to those (inexperienced in this process) who think
writing, testing and vetting SC will either be easier than it is, or feel,
putting off to a following release is OK

-- I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC from
any of the TFs in 2.1

-- I am objecting to not providing improved SC for the existing set, that
are not COGA, LV or MOBILE specific. In other words to providing new SC to
the main set that don't fall under a TF.

Seperate from the charter, but an outcome and related to its development
via objections and developments over the past year:

-- I want to draw attention to and object to the loss of transparency and
true consensus, that this WG was founded and run on.

I hope I am being clear.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 12, 2016 6:51 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Hi Katie,
>
>
>
> It feels a little odd arguing about this as I’m fairly ambivalent about
> the timeline after 2.1, but as I read through the feedback from various
> people, there was a logical solution to me.
>
>
>
> It was from Makoto, who said:
>
> “If there will be any conflicting SC in WCAG 2.1, it could cause a
> problem. I don't want a situation that a website conforming to WCAG 2.1
> doesn't conform to WCAG 2.0.
>
>
>
> So it'll be okay if it'll looks like:
>
> - Baseline: WCAG 2.0
>
> - Advanced Level: WCAG 2.1, 2.2...”
>
>
>
> The backwards compatibility in the 2.x line is what enables this approach,
> because the 2.0 version is not invalid or outdated, it just (potentially)
> isn’t as full as the latest version. That does cause us headaches (I would
> prefer to re-do some of them), but it does enable the approach.
>
>
>
> We can’t move at the pace of the slowest Government, and even someone
> involved in Section 508 (the slowest update to date?) has said the approach
> should not be problematic.
>
>
>
> The main thing I’m struggling to understand why this is an issue for*
> this* charter, are you objecting to a 2.1 in 2018?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
>
> I would prefer that - either these people join a call where we can all ask
> questions, or, we draft a specific introduction with questions that is
> approved by this WG.
>
>