Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...

Changing the normative language of WCAG need not be akin to moving a big
heavy rock...it should not require tremendous effort each time the
normative language needs to change. The historical approach to change
guarantees that when the latest and greatest is published it is already out
of date. This process must be more nimble.

Many 'standards' bodies make frequent changes. Some have more aggressive
laws, regulations, and policy makers supporting them than others. Some rely
more of the forces of the marketplace than others. The 'teeth' (for lack of
a better term) behind standards is a separate matter, one that cannot be
overlooked but also cannot get in the way of necessary change. The point is
that the WCAG WG needs to stop trying to make change difficult and start
contemplating ways to make it easier, quicker, able to adapt to changing
technology in a more timely manner.

Which model? Perhaps some of all of the proposed models is what is needed.
By itself any of the proposed models comes with a bit of shoehorning. The
pros of one are in some cases the cons of another. Picking just one will
perpetuate the rigidity that makes changing WCAG akin to moving a large,
heavy rock.

Finding a way to keep WCAG/accessibility closer to new technologies, able
to incorporate new information about disabilities, and ready to publish
changes in months rather than years will better serve people with
disabilities. Isn't that what WCAG/ATAG/UAAG are all about.

Sure, 'industry' will whine and complain, but again that is a separate
matter. This body must put forth what is good and right for people with
disabilities. It needs to contemplate the challenges 'industry' will
encounter but not be inhibited by it. Perhaps a separate body is needed to
address the concerns of 'industry' while working with policy makers and
regulators to find a balance where progress is possible but not slowed or
stopped by 'industry'. Using the WCAG WG as a means to address the needs of
all stakeholders is simply too restricting.

Unless the WCAG WG decides who they are working for, people with
disabilities will continue to pay a very high and hard to measure price.
Pitting the needs of a person with a disability against the "needs" of
'industry' puts a person against profit. The person will lose almost every
time.

No doubt I have wandered into a mine field. The W3C has an obligation to
the members who support the organization and that is for the most part
'industry'. I am not proposing to ignore the needs of 'industry', rather to
move that part of the discussion to a new area of the W3C so the WCAG WG
can be more nimble and stop leaving people with disabilities several steps,
several years behind.


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:05 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:55 PM
>
> Thanks for this. It appears that there is growing support for the idea
> that WAI perhaps need to re-invigorate our efforts around the ideals of
> ATAG and UAAG more (and certainly Authoring Tools, which more than one
> commenter has noted already). I will be sure to ensure that this is
> captured as the valuable feedback it is for the larger “WAI 20202”
> discussion
>
>
>
> An emphatic +1 to the above.
>
>
>
> Returning to the shorter-term discussion of what do we do now, today
> (tomorrow, this month, this fiscal quarter), your response highlighted the
> words *new devices* and *new technologies. *Does this mean then that you
> believe that Option 1.2 WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or platform
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models/Model_4> is
> your preferred way forward? I’m trying to bring focus to the immediate need
> we are facing now: the fact that we are creating new (potential) Success
> Criteria, new “Best Practices”, new Techniques, etc. The question I want to
> look at closely here is what exactly are we going to do with that material?
> How do we “publish” it, and under what model?
>
>
>
> I don't support technology or platform-specific, normative success
> criteria. The value and longevity of WCAG 2.0 owes much to the
> technology-independence of its success criteria, which have endured
> remarkably well in the face of important advances, for instance in mobile
> devices.
>
>
>
> I think the best response is to integrate the work of the task forces into
> a list of high-quality success criteria, then either publish them as an
> extension document or as a WCAG 2.x document.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>



-- 
Regards,
Kurt Mattes
Accessibility Program Manager
Deque Systems
610-368-1539