Re: Is it 2 or 3 years that WCAG will be updated? - I thought it was approx. 3

Jason wrote:

> *For this to change, Web application developers need to be educated in
accessible design, and the organizations that employ them need to
prioritize accessibility to a much greater extent and on a much larger
scale than has occurred so far.*

​Fair point, and to the issue of educating developers in accessible design
(and accessible development techniques) that need couldn't be greater
today​.

One of the reasons why I continue to advocate for a speedier release of
relevant and 'ready' Success Criteria in the WCAG 2.x effort is that there
are gaps that either we at the W3C will definitively fill, or those gaps
will be filled by others, diluting our relevance and claim to being the
definitive source for Web Accessibility standards. In my previous posting,
I've illustrated concretely (and not just alluded to) the fact that even
the US Department of Justice referenced the BBC Mobile Accessibility
Guidelines in their settlement agreement with Netflix. If we continue to
dawdle down the path at the speed of the US Federal Government, I posit
we'll continue to lose our credibility and relevance along the way,
supplanted by other more relevant and 'current' guidelines. *This is
already happening.*


> *If you think this cannot realistically happen without further regulatory
intervention around the world (and it’s a very plausible view to hold),
then the role of WCAG in policy and legal contexts will need to expand
further rather than diminish.*

As I previously noted, progress is indeed happening in the USA's commercial
sector, despite the fact that "web accessibility" is still not codified
into any specific law: rather, the DoJ simply notes that the recognized
global standard is the W3C's WCAG (except when it isn't, then it's the BBC
mobile standard instead) and armed with that are applying appropriate legal
pressure to realize progress. Meanwhile, as Jonathan noted in his post, you
have US governmental entities pushing back on even achieving Section 508
compliance, suggesting to me that laws alone are not enough, it is, (once
again) enforcement that is more critical today.


> *However, I tend to agree with Katie that the regulatory audience is
fundamental to WCAG, and that if we don’t satisfy the needs of policy
creators as an essential audience, then the benefits won’t be sufficiently
large to justify the investment of work required to revise the
specification.*

This claim is being made, but do we really have any evidence to support
that claim?

It is worth noting that today in America, there is little legal requirement
to be conformant to WCAG 2.0 today - at best we have the DoJ extending
their interpretation of the ADA to include WCAG as a measurement metric
(and nothing more, at least until such time as the ADA is revised), and the
ACAA (Air Carriers Accessibility Act) which uses WCAG as a measurement
metric as well, as part of a larger accessibility legislation.

I'm not suggesting that policy creators aren't important, but I am also
suggesting that *their timeline and agenda should not be our timeline and
agenda*: it very much begins to feel like we are no longer a Technical
Standards group, but rather an extension and arm of legislative bodies
around the globe. And given that, at least in the US, the legislative
bodies can't seem to budge beyond 1999 (the date Section 508 was
published), AND that the DoJ is simply accepting our international
technical standard as the benchmark they are using in determining
"accessibility" (and taking legal action against that perspective) it
certainly suggests to me that we need to keep regulators informed, and seek
their input, but that we should move at *our* pace, and let them catch up
to us.

However, I have pressed opponents to my perspective to provide proof of
their assertions, and so I too need to do the same. Thankfully, Andrew, in
the role as co-Chair of this working group, reached out to a number of
regulators earlier last month to gather their input. The thread can be
found in the archives
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/author.html>,
but here's what *I* heard and read:

*This discussion started with a message saying [sic] “2 years is too short,
4-5 years is the appropriate length”, but with little factual information
to support that conclusion. I’ve heard numerous times that government
policy people and people in the legal community are opposed to a faster
timeline, but in the conversations I’ve had so far (details to be provided
soon) the evidence is to the contrary.*

​(source:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0076.html)​


*The Access Board does not have an opinion on whether a two year routine
cycle for releases of 2.x would be a problem. We would have to see a couple
iterations. I can only assume our opinion would be much the same as
everyone else.*

​(source:​
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0083.html)


*Paul​ *
*(Jackson in *
*the Government of Canada​) **indicated that having better advance notice
of what is happening is desirable. Predictability is desirable. It sounded
like the main experience that guided that view was that in the Jodan court
case where the Government was sued, it was found that the Government was
violating human rights even though they were using the current standard
(WCAG 1.0) and WCAG 2.0 was just a working draft. If there was a schedule
of updates it would allow the government to plan better.*

​
(source:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0121.html
​)



*If Conforming to WCAG 2.1/2.2 means conforming to WCAG 2.0 at the same
time, I think it'll be okay... If WCAG 2.1 will be "WCAG 2.0 plus some
additional SC", we'll be able to manage it. For example, Japanese public
websites are encouraged to conform to JIS 2016 (=WCAG 2.0). Some websites
might go further by conforming to WCAG 2.1. That's fine.*

*​*(source:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0120.html
​)*​*
​




> *I also note that the issue of how frequently WCAG should be updated will
inevitably be re-evaluated at the end of the next charter period (we are
not bound by any prospective statements in the currently proposed charter
that extend beyond it), and that any further decisions about frequency of
updates should be postponed until then.*

Agreed, and against my better judgement I conceded to that decision, even
though, as I've noted, I feel personally that we've left a giant hole in
our process, along with the fact that despite demanding governmental input,
we expressly ignored the input from Paul Jackson from Canada (noted above)
for a "schedule of updates". It is also worth noting that our draft Charter
is currently before the AC for review, and there is no guarantee that what
we proposed will be accepted without revision, and so to the question of
what we are or are-not bound to in our Charter remains an open question
today.

If nothing else, I personally have an extremely high expectation that we
ship WCAG 2.1 *on time, with no delays* (including delays introduced by
legislators taking weeks or months to respond to requests for comment).
Failing to meet that deliverable, which is noted in our proposed Charter,
will be tantamount to a complete Working Group Failure, and could call into
jeopardy the very existence of this Working Group*. This will therefore
necessitate that not all proposed SC move forward in the prescribed time
frame, and yet we've not explained what will happen to those proposed SC
that didn't make the first date/cut, so yes Jason, we've proposed to kick
that problem down the road a piece, but we've come nowhere near resolving
it.

(*I've previously noted what happened to UAAG WG and the near-death
experience that EO WG experienced at the last round of Chartering, so I
won't continue to belabor the point)

JF


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:52 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 3:30 PM
>
> Regarding Katie’s statement – I have seen what she describes.  While some
> customers are eager to know what is best practices, when it comes to
> prioritizing and actually addressing issues many organizations are only
> willing to do what is required.
>
> *[Jason] The extent to which this is true in different countries and
> contexts is an interesting matter that may be elucidated if appropriate
> questions are asked during the Silver survey process.*
>
> *It is also relevant to note that despite approximately twenty years of
> work to improve Web accessibility, successive studies have shown
> overwhelmingly that only a small proportion of Web sites and Web
> applications meet accessibility standards. For this to change, Web
> application developers need to be educated in accessible design, and the
> organizations that employ them need to prioritize accessibility to a much
> greater extent and on a much larger scale than has occurred so far. If you
> think this cannot realistically happen without further regulatory
> intervention around the world (and it’s a very plausible view to hold),
> then the role of WCAG in policy and legal contexts will need to expand
> further rather than diminish.*
>
> *The organizations that employ participants in this working group are
> exceptional in that they prioritize accessibility to a much greater extent
> than appears to be the norm, or, in the case of consulting firms and
> disability-related organizations, their mission is to make the Web more
> accessible and thereby to promote genuine equality for people with
> disabilities.*
>
> *However, I tend to agree with Katie that the regulatory audience is
> fundamental to WCAG, and that if we don’t satisfy the needs of policy
> creators as an essential audience, then the benefits won’t be sufficiently
> large to justify the investment of work required to revise the
> specification.*
>
> *I also note that the issue of how frequently WCAG should be updated will
> inevitably be re-evaluated at the end of the next charter period (we are
> not bound by any prospective statements in the currently proposed charter
> that extend beyond it), and that any further decisions about frequency of
> updates should be postponed until then.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion