- From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:50:03 +0200
- To: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <16146098076.1165bb0c899229.8539494095721222916@zoho.com>
Hi Folks
I just wanted to update everyone that our objections are definitly noted and that the transition of WCAG 2.1 is being delayed while management reviews the objections.
An interesting question that has come up in the discussions is what changes could be made to the group to make inclusion more successful.
Any ideas?
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
---- On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:48:58 +0200 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ----
Hi Lisa,
The AG WG 's 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.
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.
No
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, 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
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 07:51:13 UTC