Re: approving the draft for WCAG 2.1

I would agree John that a good reason would be needed. 

My personal opinion (chair hat off) would be that  a good reason would be that a specification does not achieve it's mandate, such as making content accessible to people with disabilities.  

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:25:19 +0200 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

Hi Lisa,


> voting here can be just your opinion and you do not need to back it up with research etc. 


I'll push back slightly on that. 


The W3C has a clearly defined process for the advancement of Technical Reports, which can be found at:
https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Reports as well as here: https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Consensus 



While it is true that CfC's do not require additional comment, because we are at the Candidate Rec stage this isn't a voting contest where a simple majority wins, nor a time where a block of votes can halt progress without strong technical reasons. So, for example, getting 20 "votes" against proceeding to CR without sound technical arguments won't stop the progress of this Draft at this time.

Meeting our publishing milestones is also a critical component and directive coming from the Consortium members, and that "pressure" is applied equally across all Working Groups at the W3C - WCAG WG has not been singled out here. So we publish what is ready, and keep working on the rest; there will be another published version in 2020 (or roughly 18 months after we publish 2.1).


JF






On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:03 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
I just want to clarify that voting here can be just your opinion and you do not need to back it up with research etc. However giving a good reason is a good idea.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:14 +0200 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

>  It is a hard decision and people will be upset either way. 


Agreed. ​It is also important to remember from a W3C policy perspective that this isn't just *another* Draft, this one is our Candidate Recommendation​ and is what the WG wants to publish later this summer, and so objections here have more significance or weight. (That said, a few voices arguing for not proceeding will likely not be accepted at this time without strong cause: W3C process also calls for consensus not unanimity - it's not an up or down vote.)


Additionally, at this time to raise a "Formal Objection" to the W3C process will require sound technical​ ​
justification​ or argument​ and cannot be based on perceived injustices or opinion alone. Most of the members of the Working Group are committed to improving the SC that benefit users with cognition issues, and so we too share the disappointments. Many of COGA's SC came along a fair way before hitting technical roadblocks, yet all of that work is preserved and we can take it/them back up later this summer when we publish 2.1 (and start in on 2.2 almost immediately). 




It's frustrating how long things take, but that's Standards work for you - we need to be rock-solid all the time, and that takes time and patience.




JF



On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
Hi

Andrew has put out a survey for WCAG at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Updated_CR_pub/


The first item approves the draft for WCAG 2.1 for candidate recommendation.  If you are satisfied with the draft you can vote yes. If you feel you can not live with this draft you can vote no (and you probably should  add the reason for your objection).
 
If there are enough objections WCAG will be unable to publish and will have to address the problems  until people have removed there objections and are OK with the new draft. However WCAG really needs to keep to it's timelines and it will be a mess if there are to many objections.  It is a hard decision and people will be upset either way. 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter












-- 
John Foliot


Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

john.foliot@deque.com



Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion












 
 













-- 
John Foliot


Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

john.foliot@deque.com



Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion