Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models

gregg

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 11:58 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg,
> 
> Please note that this was sent to more than "interest groups" - it was also sent to the WCAG Working Group's main mailing list as well, as this is and was an activity undertaken inside of that Working Group.
> 

I saw that - -but the internal working group does not count toward “Public Comment” 

> This activity also happened with the awareness of, and contributions from, both Michael and Judy, and again, with the goal of clarifying *how* the extensions (already a mandated deliverable in the WCAG Charter) would actually function. This is not something *new*, it is not an attempt to re-charter WCAG WG, it is simply about getting consensus on what the extensions will look like, how (and when) they will be rolled out, and how they will work interoperability-wise.

I didn’t say it was unauthorized or anything like that.    I just said that it does not count as Public Comment if we don’t use our public comment mechanisms — which are specifically designed to reach all audiences.   

> 
> Currently, the WCAG Charter says this about "extensions":
> 
> Develop normative WCAG 2.0 extensions and support materials to address special topic areas as needed without changing the meaning of conformance to WCAG 2.0 on its own:
> Define criteria for specific user groups and industry verticals that have identified needs for accessibility guidance, including but not limited to:
> mobile devices,
> cognitive impairments and learning disabilities,
> digital learning materials,
> low vision;
> Ensure that while extensions may or may not redefine aspects of WCAG 2.0 within the context of the extension, extension work does not affect the validity of any current WCAG 2.0 claim;
> Provide guidance for how WCAG 2.0 extensions could apply to non-web content as needed;
> That's it. There is nothing there about how, when, where, or even what, and so members of the Working Group set off to try and get, or formulate and propose answers to those questions.
> 
> This effort is an activity of the WCAG WG, and I took appropriate steps to ensure that we were not overstepping our bounds, nor procedurally doing anything outside of W3C policy. The feedback from this exercise has been delivered to the co-chairs of the Working Group, who will decide upon next steps - one which may very-well be a formal Call for Consensus. I don't believe we are at the end of the discussion, however I think we've managed to effectively weed out possible models that won't work, based upon community feedback and the compare and contrast exercise this activity undertook.
> 
> Do you have any substantive comments you wish to add to this discussion now? There isn't (and never was) a formal cut-off date for this focused discussion, simply a desire to "get going" (as it were), and if you have comments you'd like to contribute I am sure the Chairs would still welcome them now.

Again - I wasn’t saying that you did anything bad or anything like that.    
And I wasn’t complaining about not having chance myself to comment. 

I was only commenting on the characterization that we had put the topic out for public comment.   What we did didnt qualify for that label.     


(Sorry  - Didn’t mean to stir up this much discussion - or imply anything was improper.  Was just commenting on the one sentence that said this was the result of public feedback when we didn’t really release the topic to the public.  ) 

Best

g


> 
> Cheers!
> 
> JF
> 
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie> <josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>> wrote:
>  
>> Ok 
>> 
>> But we can’t refer to it as a call for Public Comments — if we only send it to interest groups.    You can check with Michael/Judy but I think that any Public Comment calls need to go out via our standard public call process or else they are just informal surveys.   and any significant changes or decisions RE direction should get input from a public call I think 
>  
> Gregg is correct. However, the exercise has proven useful and feedback will help us determining our future direction.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Josh
>  
>> 
>> gregg
>> 
>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 10:22 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>  
>>> Yes, the initial email went out on April 8th, and was sent to w3c-wai-gl, w3c-wai-ig, and the WebAIM mailing list (for good measure) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016AprJun/0014.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016AprJun/0014.html>
>>>  
>>> Currently, the WCAG WG Charter is ambivalent on the definition of “extensions”, outside of the fact that the various existing Task Forces are all working towards the creation of “extensions”. This activity was a follow-on to that: seeking a clearer definition of what “extensions” are, and how they would work with regard to advancement, adoption, inter-operability, date(s) of release, etc. This is NOT a re-chartering of the WCAG WG, but simply an exercise in clarification, opened to public comment.
>>>  
>>> HTH
>>>  
>>> JF
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   <>
>>> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:15 AM
>>> To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
>>> Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org <mailto:team-wcag-editors@w3.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models
>>>  
>>> Was this announced on the W3C WCAG WG public comment list?  
>>>  
>>> if so - I missed it.   
>>>  
>>> Posting to an Interest list is not an official call for comments.  This is not monitored by most of the world. 
>>>  
>>> That said the comments are interesting.  But if the Working Group is to act on anything — it really needs to base it off of a public call for comments. 
>>> 
>>> gregg
>>>  
>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 8:58 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Dear Working Group, Chairs,
>>>>  
>>>> As previously discussed, public feedback was solicited in early April on how to proceed with WCAG.next, the extension(s) to WCAG 2.0. In total, we received 66 emails from 27 people on this topic.
>>>>  
>>>> Jeanne Spellman has consolidated all of that feedback into one page (here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models>) for this Working Group to contemplate. 
>>>>  
>>>> While feedback is still welcome, Jeanne and I believe that we have gathered enough comments and discussion to bring this forward to the larger group at this time, and equally that we observed a coalescence around the proposed 2.2 model “WCAG 2.x by date across Task Forces as work is ready”, although it is, at this time, the prerogative of the Working Group to still entertain some of the other possible models.
>>>>  
>>>> Subsequently, we are considering this deliverable complete, and we look forward to the discussion and decision that the WCAG WG finally makes.
>>>>  
>>>> Sincerely
>>>>  
>>>> JF
>>>> ​-- 
>>>> John Foliot
>>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>> Austin, TX
>>>>  
>>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>> 2121 Cooperative Way, Suite 210,  
>>>> Herndon, VA 20171-5344
>>>> Office: 703-225-0380 <tel:703-225-0380> 
>>>> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>>>>  
>>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion