Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models

Cool, gotcha.

JF

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

>
>
> *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 <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> 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
>>
>> 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
>> <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:15 AM
>> *To:* John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>> *Cc:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; WCAG Editors <
>> 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> 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) 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
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>> *Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion*
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion