Re: approving the draft for WCAG 2.1

I would encourage all to answer the CR publication survey based on their
own belief and experience, as to the success and due diligence of meeting
the goals of WCAG, and not to feel coerced to answer in one fashion or
another.

On Jan 24, 2018 5:49 PM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> The AG WG 's Charter <https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter> is quite
> clear on expectations, scope and goals:
>
> The WCAG 2.1 recommendation will address gaps in WCAG 2.0 related to
> content and will incorporate updated Success Criteria to address content
> viewed on small display sizes and used with touch and stylus-based input
> modalities - features particularly common for mobile devices. WCAG 2.1 will
> also incorporate updated Success Criteria related to content and digital
> publications accessed by people with low-vision and with cognitive
> disabilities.
>
> Scope
>
> The group will:
>
>    - Develop WCAG 2.1 to address gaps in WCAG 2.0 related to content and
>    incorporate updated Success Criteria to address content viewed on small
>    display sizes and used with touch and stylus-based input modalities -
>    features particularly common for mobile devices. WCAG 2.1 will also
>    incorporate updated Success Criteria related to content and digital
>    publications accessed by people with low-vision and with cognitive
>    disabilities. To keep scope focused, candidate Success Criteria will
>    be vetted according to careful WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria acceptance
>    criteria <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>.
>    - Develop a framework and repository of test rules, to promote a
>    unified interpretation of WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 among different web
>    accessibility test tools.
>    - Incubate requirements for a major update to WCAG to address
>    usability and conformance challenges.
>    - Continue development of non-normative documents to support
>    implementation of accessibility guidelines.
>
> ​
> N
> ​o​
> thing in the above suggests
> ​ ​
> that we will be "complete"
> ​, "finished"​
> , or that
> ​ proposed SC will automatically make it through the first round of
> updates. The charter doesn't say *all* gaps, it just notes "gaps", and with
> 2.1 I think we've plugged a number of them. We're not finished, not by a
> long shot, but per W3C membership directive (the folks that pay to keep the
> lights on at the W3C) we're publishing significantly more frequently than
> in the past.
>
> One of the key things about the new Charter (and approach for this WG) is
> this concept of running updates that will happen in roughly 18-month
> increments​, which both gives us the time to get things right, but also
> allows us to ship things that *ARE* right (complete) in a timely fashion.
> Waiting for "all the new stuff" to be 100% ready means we'll always be
> waiting - we saw that with the delay of WCAG 2.0, and external to the W3C,
> the downside to that kind of delay was achingly abundant and clear with the
> 18-years-in-the-making Section 508 refresh. That delay helped no-one
> (except the most outrageous foot-draggers). I would hope we can all agree
> we don't want that.
>
>
> So, as we approach our first 2.x publication date, a "good reason" to
> block advancing would need to be technical in nature ("this prove-ably
> cannot be done at scale", or "this SC is dependant on specifications that
> themselves are not complete") BUT NOT because it's taking longer to get
> COGA SC complete and ready, or because of perceived biases or "broken
> promises" - simply because by virtue of the Charter, we're not finished
> (nor, I suspect, will we ever be: we've not even started to think deeply
> about accessibility and Virtual Reality, or accessibility and the Internet
> of Things, or accessibility and the increased use of speech-input as a
> specific 'thing' - in the same way that the mobile discussion actually
> morphed to 'touch interfaces' - let alone starting to draft out SC to
> address those topic areas).
>
> Perhaps a good way of thinking about this is by using "Chapters" - WCAG
> 2.1 represents Chapter 1, and WCAG 2.2 will be Chapter 2, and so on and so
> on. The book may never be complete, but we'll be adding more chapters at a
> rate more reflective of the technology we're dealing with (i.e. every 18
> months), and on balance I think that's a very good thing.
>
> I can appreciate the frustration, and the sense that "COGA" has already
> waited since 2008, but the new way of publishing WCAG will actually deliver
> tangible results on those problems. However we can't expect it all to be
> fixed overnight - it will still take patience and perseverance, but
> thankfully the wait will be no more than 18 months, so I urge all of the
> COGA TF to be thoughtful in their response to the CfC, and remember the
> process that has been set up behind our work - it's been drawn up from past
> lessons learned.
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:48 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:25:19 +0200 *John
>> Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com <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 <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:14 +0200 *John
>> Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com <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
>> <https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#FormalObjection>" 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 <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>