Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates

Thank you for sharing this and for asking for feedback.

COMMENT: Overall, I agree that this proposal will bring some much needed
clarity to where things stand. One item of note however is related to W3C
Process, where you quote some of the process (Slide 11). Excised from the
quote however is this critical caveat:

Groups *should* favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is
preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that
cause strong objections from a few people.

Additionally, from that same slide, it states:


   -

   Objections must have a clear rationale based on:
   -

       the technical merit or
      -

      with reference to the agreed scope of the work.


I'd like to see an additional bullet there that references
"institutional/anecdotal knowledge and information". For example, on the
call of September 14th
<https://www.w3.org/2021/09/14-ag-minutes.html#item03>, Bruce Bailey noted
"...*that the bar for writing text that is anticipated to picked up by
regulators is higher than writing industry consensus standards*..." Failing
to note that important data point in our decision-making would, I assert,
would possibly result in an incomplete or under-informed decision.

JF

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:22 PM Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am adding in the Silver list.  When commenting on this proposal, please
> respond all this email.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Rachael
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:51 AM
> *To: *"WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates
> *Resent-From: *<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Regarding the presentation I gave on our process & WCAG 3.0 document, that
> presentation is here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb/edit#slide=id.p1
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb%2Fedit%23slide%3Did.p1&data=04%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C5d9e891b972e4ba6cb4308d98d2101ba%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C637695995644406401%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=M93cH8vmMLNgQ1FZ9zzFlYbvUiT8IXON%2F2xKyN7nMgM%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> The main point of the proposal is to change the expectation that the
> entire document has consensus and is ‘recommendation ready’.
>
>
>
> You could consider the entire current Working Draft (WD) to be
> ‘exploratory’, but we have internal (and probably external) confusion about
> the intended maturity level of the document.
>
>
>
> The proposal is to apply labels to each section of the documents which
> indicate the level of maturity, and have a level of review that each
> section needs to get to for that level.
>
>
>
> The official Working Draft would have the more mature content, the Editors
> Draft would include everything being worked on. Both would have the labels.
>
>
>
> Meeting time is rather precious at the moment, we wanted to put this
> proposal in front of everyone, get some feedback (here) for broader points,
> and then have a survey/discussion.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"