W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > October 2021

Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 16:06:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHVyjGP+jpPgr06snxhs79ZCn9EDq5ByBmUvpPhySamFtbXgqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>, Rachael Bradley-Montgomery <rmontgomery@loc.gov>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Hey folks,

I think we need to see this as an attempt at a compromise. There are
clearly two sides to this that are getting increasingly entrenched. We need
to break that, or we're all just going to burn out on this project.

I partially agree with Gregg about getting AG on board with early stages
too. I think getting consensus about placeholder and exploratory content is
a bit too heavy-handed. But a possible compromise on that could be that
before any such content is added, AG is informed of it via e-mail, and they
are given the opportunity to submit amendments. That way any existing
concerns can be added as notes.

As for a process for removing; I agree this needs to be done more
explicitly. I think the idea is that all content must be stable before
going to CR. So anything for which there is no consensus about it being
stable either has to be removed, or CR has to be postponed.

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:43 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Gregg. I share many of your concerns.
>
>
>
> In WCAG 2.1 we made a mistake in adding proposed SC into the editor’s
> draft and luckily we caught it before the 1st WD but it was a painful
> no-win scenario – on one hand there was no way that we were going to go out
> to public review with >50 new SC that hadn’t been fully vetted, but on the
> other there were ideas that were important to many people and some had the
> expectation that once it was in the editor’s draft that it was going to be
> in the final spec.
>
>
>
> I believe that the risk of including content that hasn’t reached consensus
> into the editor’s draft and the working draft is risky and we will wind up
> spending more time responding to comments and critiques for unvetted
> content than we can afford. There is also a problem that I don’t see
> addressed in your presentation related to how content that is exploratory,
> maturing, or mature gets removed from the working drafts. Does it require
> consensus to remove it or consensus to keep it? At what point does this
> decision happen?
>
>
>
> I can envision a proposed criterion that gets put in early and while it
> does mature to some degree, ultimately has problems (related to conformance
> or AT support or whatever). The WG may want to remove it but this is
> strongly opposed by a few individuals and at the same time keeping it in is
> strongly opposed by just as many or more. I think that this creates more
> problems than having items need to have consensus for inclusion in the
> draft.
>
>
>
> Several times we have heard requests to add content into WCAG 3.0 that
> hasn’t been fully vetted by the WG, and the WG has grown increasingly
> uncomfortable with doing this. The result of that discomfort in August was
> that the WG agreed that we wouldn’t do that anymore and that the lack of a
> conformance model couldn’t be ignored any longer as it prevented the WG
> from fully analyzing proposals. We have heard many times that the ideas
> that are being proposed are very good and the idea seems to be that once
> the rest of the WG sees the positive response from the public review they
> will get it and we will be able to move forward. I don’t agree with that
> approach – there are many people on the WG with decades of experience and
> getting consensus across the WG is essential prior to expecting that a
> less-engaged public will provide additional scrutiny.
>
>
>
> Yes, it is super hard to get new things into WCAG, but if you have a great
> idea then I believe it can run the gauntlet and enter the working draft
> stronger for that process.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Director, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
> *Date: *Friday, October 15, 2021 at 8:52 AM
> *To: *Rachael Bradley-Montgomery <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, October 15, 2021 at 8:51 AM
>
>
>
> RE: Levels of Maturity
>
>
>
> I think the idea of level of maturity labels is a great idea
>
>
>
> There are a lot of good bits to it
>
>
>
> But I would change one bit - which I think is critical to process
>
>
>
>    - Once something is in — it is very hard to get it back out
>    - Getting something back out - can use up a LOT of time and discussion
>    getting it back out - slowing the group way down and creating bad feelings.
>    - If a subgroup can put things in without WG review (for expediency)
>    it is likely to slow down the process down much more later (much more than
>    any time saved up front) - and again - create bad feelings.
>    - The only reason to include something early - is to get input on it
>    because there is a question or sticking point where input is sought.
>    - *RECOMMENDATION*
>
>
>    1. *That nothing go into any draft without WG consensus *
>       2. *The WG would be less strict about what goes in at lower levels
>       - allowing things that it thinks might be added (there is some evidence
>       that it might) even if wording is not worked out. *
>       3. *Language attached to such items would be commensurate with
>       belief that they can make it or the concerns that need to be addressed.
>        And they should include a request for comment or input to address those. *
>
>
>    - If the subgroup cannot convince the working group to include
>    something, even the lower level, it shouldn’t be there yet.
>    - The editor’s, working, and public docs are all communication
>    instruments of the working group - not any subgroup - so the working group
>    should know and determine what is in its communications.
>
>
>
> I had a second thought at the meeting but cannot recall it now.  So I will
> pass this one on.
>
>
>
> Otherwise I think the basic concept — labeling things with level of
> Maturity — is a good one.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> gregg
>
> ———————————
> Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
> Director , Trace R&D Center, UMD
>
>
>
>
>
> On 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb%2Fedit%23slide%3Did.p1&data=04%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C78125adbd07f4308d96008d98fda8be0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637698991500935487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=4sRgODYuDwPEhVS87AmD4jBITGCc7gBU%2BV6zex4FOnc%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
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C78125adbd07f4308d96008d98fda8be0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637698991500935487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=nA8wBTvsbn4p2VMVdD70m%2BYDY7PsTjA87K3q30XKQ58%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force

deque_logo_180p.gif
(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)

Received on Saturday, 16 October 2021 14:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 16 October 2021 14:07:27 UTC