W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:46:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxFVFwC7nKg5npCp4o8mxGQwc2A=EmH8icvC-0rdQBhsYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
In case I was not clear about this, I have never suggested that 2.1 delay
its current release schedule...

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 5, 2016 2:41 PM, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear WCAG WG,



After a polite, in the background, dressing-down from Andrew, which is his
job as chair, I would like to apologize for the tone of the following
statement:



​​​​​“…….Waiting would be more prudent, but calmer heads do not seem to be
listening. They are listening to the very AC Reps of companies who would
just love to see Section 508 and the ADA updates be undone, delayed or
expelled….. ”



This is the first time in my 16 years on this working group that I have
been asked to keep a respectful tone. And, I didn’t do that.



But, hopefully, for those who know me, it just shows my level of
frustration and concern that we are painting ourselves into an untenable
corner, by thinking we can or should, try to build this standard like a web
language or software application - in an agile fashion that we can fix next
month. Those technologies are not taken up by civil rights laws and
policies around the world. It is just not the same thing, and can’t be
treated the same.



Additionally, my statement is still a very real concern.



I am asking for compromise here, again, there is a space between 10 and 2
years for saying we will provide a new standard.







** katie **



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



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



*From:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 5, 2016 1:24 PM
*To:* 'White, Jason J' <jjwhite@ets.org>; 'Alastair Campbell' <
acampbell@nomensa.com>; 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'WCAG' <
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

*Cc:* 'CAE-Vanderhe' <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
*Subject:* RE: should we have a 2 year refresh cycle or a 4-5 year refresh
cycle



You are not wrong. Waiting would be more prudent, but calmer heads do not
seem to be listening. They are listening to the the very AC Reps of
companies who would just love to see Section 508 and the ADA updates be
undone, delayed or expelled…..we have to compromise on some issues….



​​​​​







** katie **



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



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



*From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <jjwhite@ets.org>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 5, 2016 1:04 PM
*To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 'Alastair Campbell' <
acampbell@nomensa.com>; 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'WCAG' <
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
*Cc:* 'CAE-Vanderhe' <gregg@raisingthefloor.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
<ryladog@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 5, 2016 12:35 PM

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.

*[Jason] Is it really possible to establish such expectations at present?
In the first place, there is disagreement about what the update plans
should be. Second, we haven’t had the experience of developing WCAG 2.1 as
an extension to 2.0 while striving to meet a fairly ambitious schedule.
Third, any subsequent versions would require Charter approval from the W3C
membership.*

*I think that subsequent plans would be better decided after 2.1 is
completed.*




------------------------------

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.
------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 19:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC