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

Jason,

 

I have to say that I am against NOT providing a regular updated cycle for organizations and government to begin to plan for – and this can include Sliver. I think we need that. 

 

So a 2.2 may be in our future. 

 

What I do NOT want to see is Cognitive SC and issues avoid being provided in 2.1, to be pushed off to a 2.2 or Silver release. Doing so will put us in the position of having mislead the world on what we said was one of the reason we are updating WCAG in the first place – and specifically, lying to the folks who worked very hard for cognitive inclusion as WCAG 2.0 was being developed.

 

I also do NOT want 2.1 to be delayed from its current release schedule.

 

To enable that to happen, I DO want all WCAG WG and TF members to take over the SC that the Cognitive TF gives us for review and help get as many testable SC ready for this 2.1 release.

​​​​​

I also want delicious chocolate ice cream that has no calories……:)

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 'Alastair Campbell' <acampbell@nomensa.com>; 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: should we have a 2 year refresh cycle or a 4-5 year refresh cycle

 

 

 

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:00 AM

There are options between 10 years and 2 years. I believe we need to take a well thought-out, more conservative stance, than two year view. 

 

Somewhere in between for new SC and a new standard – let’s say – 3 (extremely optimistic), 4 (optimistic), or 5 years (but no more than 5).

[Jason] Hi Katie,

Would you be comfortable with the following, which I put forward in order to understand your position rather than as a proposal at this stage?

*         Commit to completing WCAG 2.1 within the next Charter period, in parallel with work on Silver.

*         Allow the Working Group to refine requirements (e.g., draft success criteria) that are unable to be included in WCAG 2.1. It would be decided near the end of the Charter period whether to seek approval to develop a subsequent WCAG 2.x release or whether to incorporate these requirements into Silver, depending on the state of progress in development of the latter.

*         Make no commitment now to developing any WCAG 2.x releases other than 2.1, and remove any and all reference in the Charter to biennial releases.

 

 

  _____  

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

 

Thank you for your compliance.

  _____