Re: approving the draft for WCAG 2.1

Ignoring the veiled accusation by Katie that I am attempting to
*coerce *anyone,
I will +1 the idea of due diligence, and post part of the W3C Process
document here for all to be aware of:

3.3.1 Managing Dissent

In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a
group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair *may* record a
decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal
Objection <https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#FormalObjection>) so
that the group can make progress (*for example, to produce a deliverable in
a timely manner*). Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying
that they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the
Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as
is possible and reasonable, the group *should* move on.

...

In the W3C process, an individual *may* register a Formal Objection to a
decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer
requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related
decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance
<https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#rec-advance> a technical
report). *Note:* In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to
emphasize this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director
consideration. The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English
connotations.

An individual who registers a Formal Objection *should* cite *technical
arguments and propose changes* that would remove the Formal Objection; these
proposals *may* be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not
provide substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious
consideration by the Director.
(source: https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/
<https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#WGArchiveMinorityViews>)

Note: The terms *must, must not, should, should not, required*, and *may *are
used in accordance with RFC 2119. (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt)


​No opinion - just the facts.

JF

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion