Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT

hmmm... the site seems to be down... perhaps that's the universe telling
him not to be such a meanie :)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi David and all,
>
> fyi:
>
> Is WCAG too long?
> By Karl Groves.
> http://www.karlgroves.com/2016/03/28/is-wcag-too-long/
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 3/26/16, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > CSUN has finished. I enjoyed following it on Twitter, mostly. There was a
> > Tweet from a talk that went out:
> >
> >  "WCAG is about 1/3 of a mile long, when printed, I want to bungee jump
> off
> > WCAG".
> >
> > Whether or not it was an accurate quote, I think it is a perception worth
> > exploring. Its' a familiar criticism of WCAG, that it is "2000 pages
> long"
> > Attempts to try to say "no it's 36 pages printed with LOTS of help" seems
> > to be drowned out.
> >
> > Personally, I'd like to explore this perception that "WCAG is too long"
> > which I've heard for years, and offer a way forward on WCAG.NEXT and/or
> the
> > extensions.
> >
> > In the early days of WCAG2 and WCAG1, our committee and a small group of
> > peripheral colleagues were the only ones who knew how to make the web
> > accessible so it was necessary to document techniques along with the
> > standards. Today, things are different:
> >
> > - We have a robust industry of accessibility professionals writing books,
> > blogs, tutorials, and making a good living doing so.
> > - We have a robust EO group working along side us providing wonderful
> > guidance on WCAG to the world.
> > - We have orgs like the Canada Gov. saying developers can ONLY use OUR
> > techniques to meet WCAG, which limits developers
> > - We have limited internal resources on our committee because we are busy
> > with our careers helping people meet WCAG, and don't have time for
> > techniques. (and feeding a baby in my case).
> >
> > Given this change in context, I think it is worth considering a new way
> > forward for our future work. So here it is.
> >
> > I think we should get out of the techniques business.
> >
> > There I said it.
> >
> > We can write Success criteria, Guidelines, principles, and offer a
> (short)
> > Understanding document for each new Success Criteria to help folks
> > understand it. We may include in the Understanding a couple of examples,
> > and of course we have to prove that each SC can be met. But lets stop
> > writing Techniques, and let the world know we don't do that. We are a
> > standards group. Here's the advantages:
> >
> > Then when we are done, people won't be able to say "It's too long".
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>