- From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:24:39 +0000
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jonathan raises some very important issues - especially the example of the way that the Section 508 refresh incorporates WAI material by reference. This approach is likely to cause some serious confusion. Whereas the incorporation of WCAG 2.0 by reference to apply to Web-content may not be so controversial, I did not seriously believe that the same would be done for non-Web ICT (merely referring to the WCAG2ICT Working Group Note by saying that "Guidance can be found at: ..." in three Advisory Notes). This leaves the Section 508 user to figure out what they are specifying or what exact requirements they have to meet. They are expected to construct their own model of what to conform to, making use of the Working Group Note and their own (probably lacking) expertise. In Europe we took the wording of the non-normative WCAG2ICT Working Group Note and carefully drafted concrete requirements that made use of the exact WCAG2ICT wording when we drafted EN 301 549 (acknowledging the source). This was a difficult and error-prone task (that forced the release of a rapid editorial update of EN 301 549 to correct errors in this task). We did what the WCAG2ICT Task Force recognised was our prerogative and chose to omit a bit of the WCAG2ICT output as we judged that it was not likely to deliver a clear accessibility benefit. Right or wrong, it is clear to anyone using EN 301 549 what the requirements are. Importantly, our approach does not confuse anyone about the non-normative nature of the original WCAG2ICT Working Group Note. I've said a little more about this and other topics in a document I wrote that compares the proposed update to Section 508 to the EN 301 549 standard. You can find it at: http://tinyurl.com/pbzonza I think that it is important that all external bodies should avoid confusing the public by in any way implying that non-normative WAI resources should be incorporated by reference as a key part of a compliance process. Best regards, Mike Pluke Castle Consulting Ltd. 76 Cowper Street Ipswich Suffolk IP4 5JA England -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] Sent: 07 August 2015 13:49 To: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: RE: WCAG Extensions and Rationale (was Legal Settlement Agreements that Reference WCAG) > The draft charter that you mentioned is not yet in effect, and it is currently unclear whether the phrase you mention will be in the new charter when it does go into effect. Politics of charters aside -- I can say that it is critical that the WAI work and have communication channels with organizations such as the US Access Board. During some of the US Access Board's public meetings on the Section 508 refresh I had the chance to share publically available discussion/information hosted by the WAI on possible extensions, status of UUAG, and AATG. The Board has excellent staff but they were not updated or aware of the status of some very important details regarding the different working groups and documents that are produced by WAI. The current refresh references many WCAG resources including WCAG to non-web ICT, AATG guidelines, etc. Understanding the implications of including WCAG documents by reference, etc. has consequences that must be considered carefully. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the US Department of Justice in its settlements is pushing for compliance with these additional guidelines (UUAG, AATG, etc. and referencing other WAI notes) and not just WCAG conformance. While this is good news for the community adherence to guidelines and association of non-normative WAI information has to be considered carefully. For example, some other governments rely on WCAG sufficient techniques and failures as measurements for compliance. Best Regards, Jonathan -- Jonathan Avila Chief Accessibility Officer SSB BART Group jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com Phone 703.637.8957 Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter -----Original Message----- From: Judy Brewer [mailto:jbrewer@w3.org] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 8:08 PM To: Laura Carlson Cc: WCAG WG Subject: Re: WCAG Extensions and Rationale (was Legal Settlement Agreements that Reference WCAG) Hi Laura, On 8/1/2015 8:55 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi Judy and all, > > On 7/30/15, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> wrote: >> As for legal settlement agreements referencing WCAG, that's not in >> the scope of the WCAG WG either. There is a policy references page >> (currently being updated) that EOWG maintains in support of >> harmonized standards uptake; a listing of agreements might perhaps be >> peripherally related to that, but we would need to confirm with EOWG >> before moving it there and they may also feel that it is out of scope. >> >> Please let me know if you have questions. > It is great to hear from you. I do have some questions. > > But first let me say that I am very sorry that you feel the Legal > Settlement Agreements that Reference WCAG 2.0 Wiki page [1] is > irrelevant to the WCAG WG. I originally created it to help inform WCAG > WG discourse and had thought that the document may have not only fit > into the draft charter's [2] statement, "Develop support materials as > needed to explain the application of WCAG 2.0 to particular > situations" but moreover be useful for the discussion on the topic of > WCAG extensions. The legal situation seems to be an underlying > rationale for the WCAG WG taking the extension route. I had not said that it was irrelevant. If you look at the context from my previous sentence (truncated in your reply to me), it was that this is not within the scope of the WCAG WG's charter. The WCAG WG group is currently operating under its existing charter. The draft charter that you mentioned is not yet in effect, and it is currently unclear whether the phrase you mention will be in the new charter when it does go into effect. The question of how to handle extensions is complex and will need to be informed from many angles. If the WG does get scoped by a new charter to more explicitly consider questions around how its work may be written in order to facilitate it being taken up in different situations, including policy settings, then the group would need to look at relevant international information, not only info from the U.S. > Although the legal situation is not explicitly called out in the draft > charter, it seems to be a reality. In the "WCAG extension" thread > Sailesh [3] talked about how "WCAG 2 is a guideline or standard if you > will, and is "often incorporated / referenced into law and that > changing WCAG2 by an extension may require changes to such laws too. > Wayne mentioned how using extensions would give time for legal changes > [4]. WCAG 2.0 is being or has been incorporated into law in various > places around the world (for example [5]). The wiki page in fact was > an attempt to inform this discussion by documenting how legal > settlements are indeed referencing WCAG 2.0. The page includes: > > * 16 City, County, Village Settlements > * 10 Commercial Settlements > * 12 Educational Settlements > * 2 Other Organization Settlements > > 22 of those were in the past 6 months. WCAG 2.0 sure seems to have > increasing legal implications. The page presents 40 US legal > agreements that I am currently aware of. An attorney who has a > practice specializing in accessibility contacted me after reading the > document to say she knows of more settlements than what is currently > listed. > > Anyway, a repercussion of this legal situation and because of WCAG > 2.0's stability and consensus, it appears that the working group can't > tweak core WCAG 2.0 without risk. It also seems that this is > underlying rationale leading to the proposed approach of WCAG 2.0 + > extensions as opposed to a WCAG 2.1 or a WCAG 3.0 approach. Judy, is > this correct? If this is off base, what is the main rationale for WCAG > taking the extensions route? Modularity? Speed? Something else? Can > you please address the questions of "Why not update WCAG?" and "Why > extensions?" Intelligent people have been asking. I am in good faith > trying to understand and piece things together. Your insight would be > most appreciated. There are many factors to take into account and many perspectives on how those fit together so as to move forward on updated Web accessibility guidelines. Here are quick thoughts on some of the things that an approach of developing WCAG 2.0 normative extensions, followed by development of WAI 3.0 (not WCAG 3.0), could help with: - Any individual area of updated guidance in the form of a normative extension on WCAG 2.0 would likely take significant time to reach consensus, yet trying to accomplish that as normative changes on WCAG 2.0 itself (a "WCAG 2.1") could take even longer. Focusing on a goal of normative extensions might allow more progress sooner for specific areas on which consensus can be reached. - Even with the amount of forward-compatibility that the WCAG WG worked hard to design into WCAG 2.0, when we consider the pace of technology change, there will be a need for a deeper rethinking and restructuring of accessibility guidance to address future technology evolution. After finishing ATAG 2.0 (currently a Proposed Recommendation) and UAAG 2.0 (which will likely become a WG Note), we need to look at combined needs across all three areas, but beyond the scope of just a WCAG 2.1. If WCAG WG were to take on development of a revised WCAG 2.1 rather than WCAG 2.0 extensions, we would likely lose ground on starting that broader re-think. > With all of that said, if you still deem the WCAG 2.0 legal settlement > documentation irrelevant and not useful to the WCAG WG, Again I believe you misread my comment. > please accept > my sincere apologies and have it removed from the WCAG Wiki (I don't > think I have the permissions to do it myself). If the EO Working Group > or anyone else finds it useful, they are more than welcome to it. For > anyone wanting a stable version of the document, the original is > available [6]. Thanks. It can be helpful to coordinate with the WCAG WG Co-Chairs (Andrew and Josh) and Team Contact (Michael) as they may sometimes have related info or plans. > Does EO have documentation for which laws around the world reference > WCAG 2.0? That may also help inform our discussion on extensions. Yes EOWG does have documentation on this; it has been out of date but they have been starting to update it, and my understanding is that they may have some help coming online for that. My initial thought about the page you're developing was that it might be more related to that. A strong resource referencing international take-up of WCAG 2.0 (not only in policies, but in other settings as well) could be a helpful component of increased progress on accessibility. But right now the charters are still in flux. - Judy > Thank you. > > Kindest Regards, > Laura > [1] > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Legal_Settlement_Agreements_that_Refere > nce_WCAG [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter > [3] > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0108.html > [4] > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0104.html > [5] "KHS: Makoto Ueki wants to rejoin the working group, and he felt > there would be great interest and attendance for a meeting in Japan > because of the new laws going into effect in Japan based on WCAG2...I > would like to see most items fall at levels A and AA, since most laws > only take those levels." > http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html > [6] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/settlements/ > > On 7/30/15, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> wrote: >> As for legal settlement agreements referencing WCAG, that's not in >> the scope of the WCAG WG either. There is a policy references page >> (currently being updated) that EOWG maintains in support of >> harmonized standards uptake; a listing of agreements might perhaps be >> peripherally related to that, but we would need to confirm with EOWG >> before moving it there and they may also feel that it is out of scope. >> >> Please let me know if you have questions. >> >> Thank you, >> >> - Judy >>>> On 7/30/15, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Jon, >>>>> >>>>> My pleasure. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have the dates at hand but I'll put it on my to do list. >>>>> Most are fairly recent. >>>>> >>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>> Laura >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/30/15, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu> wrote: >>>>>> Laura, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for setting up this resource. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you possibly add the dates of the settlements? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you again, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:38 PM >>>>>> To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >>>>>> Subject: New Wiki Page: Legal Settlement Agreements that >>>>>> Reference WCAG >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I put up a new Wiki page: Legal Settlement Agreements that >>>>>> Reference WCAG. >>>>>> It is at: >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Legal_Settlement_Agreements_that_R >>>>>> eference_WCAG >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have additions, please let me know or edit at will. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Laura >> -- >> Judy Brewer >> Director, Web Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web >> Consortium (W3C) >> 32 Vassar St. Room G-526, MIT/CSAIL >> Cambridge MA 02149 USA >> www.w3.org/WAI/ -- Judy Brewer Director, Web Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 32 Vassar St. Room G-526, MIT/CSAIL Cambridge MA 02149 USA www.w3.org/WAI/
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 13:25:14 UTC