Re: WCAG proposal for discussion

A few thoughts as we consider this proposal 

1) I think the two year timeline is unrealistic.    If there are only a few items - perhaps - and if you already have them in hand in a close-to-final form,  then perhaps.   But I didn’t think that we did    
note that this is not a comment against the plan — but just a comment to set expectations to be realistic

2) This proposal/timeline pre-supposes that we will be able to create the new testable SC in relatively short time.  We have been working on this a long time and I haven’t seen any SC go out for public comment even once yet.  From our experience with WCAG hat is when you start getting comments — and from this previous experience — you really don’t know what you have until you have done that.   We also found that many do not comment until the FINAL CALL release.   So be prepared for many more comments at that time.  

3) I have a bit of a concern that we have spent more time on discussing the format and timing and process for updating WCAG normatively — than in creating and publicly airing any candidate provisions for normative changes.    This is fine but I worry it sets expectations that we will have a bunch of SC - before we successfully create them.  (and they are reeeeaaallly hard)    I would hate to create expectations and then end up accepting things that don’t qualify — because we are on some timeline for having a bunch — and we ship whatever we can create.       ( there was an ad that said  “We will ship no wine before its time”).    I would rather we work on the SC and we don’t ship until we have a reasonable set of new SC — rather than planning to ship on a deadline with whatever we have. 

4) (Broken record alert)  I continue to worry that we are / will throw away 90% of the good work we do because it isn’t measurable and generally applicable ( all content types and all technologies) because we decided that SCs are the only really valuable things.     I think SCs will prove to be VERY hard to create and that we will cry as we see how many great topics don’t qualify.
I would much rather we work on gathering all that we know, whether testable or not, and publishing it as a note on ‘how to make web content accessible to XXXXX  (e.g. people wth cognitive, language, and learning disabilities)
and then - see which parts of our advice might qualify as SC changes. 
rather than focus on just the SC first — and keep moaning as we watch so much good advice and knowledge be cut away and discarded because it isnt testable - or generally applicable - or another requirement of an SC. 

thanks

gregg

> On May 11, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> WCAGers - 
> 
> We wanted to follow up on this item.  
> 
> Yesterday on the call the attendees discussed this proposal and there was agreement that this is a good approach.  I encourage people to review the related minutes (http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html>) - it is the first topic on the call.
> 
> We are interested in the feedback and thoughts of others on this proposal.
> 
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 10:52
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Subject: WCAG proposal for discussion
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 11:10
> 
> For discussion on the call.  For list participants we encourage discussion following the call (and reading the minutes).
> 
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/WCAG_future_proposal>
> 
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>