Re: should we have a 2 year refresh cycle or a 4-5 year refresh cycle

Jason wrote:

“I doubt that regulators could keep up with such frequent changes to what is supposed to be a stable Web standard built for the long term. This is especially true if they cannot refer, for example, to “WCAG 2.0 or any later version” , a solution which is problematic in that it leaves the legal standard open to modification at any time by an organization that is not part of the government.”

Alastair: I thought the idea was that people can carry on referring to WCAG 2.0 if they wish, and next time they update they review the most recent stable release. Whether that is 2.1, 2.4, or 3.0.

We can’t control the timeline of 100+ countries laws, but we can’t adhere to their timelines either. We need a stable trail of releases that they can pick up when it is suitable for them.

We also have to balance the need for long timescales with other feedback that WCAG is looking out of date now. I think we can turn to the policy makers and point to the technology changes that require us to update more often.

Whether it is 2 years or 5, we need an update ASAP and another in less than 5 years IMHO (which probably means aiming for 2?!).



Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 13:37:39 UTC