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

> I have never suggested that 2.1 delay its current release schedule...

But Katie, therein lies the problem. This working group has a large
collection of proposed new Success Criteria. They aren't newly proposed
Techniques (we have those too), but real, unique, as-yet-undocumented
(potential) SC based on the newly
​ [sic]​
discovered needs of the Mobile platform, of persons with Low Vision
​,​
and for the constituents addressed by the COGA task force.

If we are to hit a Spring 2018 release of an updated WCAG, and given Gregg
and David's very real observations that it takes time and careful thought
to 'launch' a new Success Criteria, it is (to my mind) unreasonable to
presume we can process all of them in that kind of time-frame, and still
ensure the careful thought and due process that Gregg & David speak of. We
heard directly from
​
multiple Chairs from the various TF's
​ at TPAC during our Face-to-Face meetings​
the concern of having to get "everything" finished in time for the 2.1
timeline.

Unless
​, however,​
we break up that collection into smaller chunks, and process a smaller
sub-set in a quicker time-frame. This is the goal of the 'dot-release'
plan: ship what's ready when it's ready, and keep on working on the rest
until they too are ready.
​This ensures we establish and maintain momentum, and also ensures that the
"easy" stuff gets out there ASAP, and the "harder" stuff has more time to
be thoughtfully processed: it recognizes that all newly proposed SC are not
the same​ in terms of work and effort.


This
​also ​
avoids a prolonged cycle of consultation and response on a large collection
of SC, and instead allows us to get real guidance and W3C "Recommendations"
into the hands of developers, tool makers, and other stake-holders
(including some of those "companies who would just love to see Section 508
and the ADA updates be undone"). It's not necessarily that they want to see
that happen, but they *ARE* frustrated that there is an implied imposition
that we go as slow as they do, because they are
​"​
the government
​"​
.

​Yes, our WCAG Recommendation​ has been very successful in shifting the
needle in the right direction, but it is also worth pointing out that a
number of countries around the world are still referencing WCAG 1.0 (
https://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/) as their "legal" requirement, and there is
nothing that the W3C can do about that - we don't write laws, we write
Technical Requirements (the TR in the URL string:
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20).

> Those technologies are not taken up by civil rights laws and policies
around the world.

Correct, however those technologies *ARE* taken up by users - lots of them.

We have legion of developers, tool makers, NGOs and other stakeholders who
need and want that we keep our Guidance and Success Criteria up-to-date in
alignment with the technology that they, and their users (many with
disabilities) are using *today*. I will suggest that meeting that need, at
a global level, is far more important than going slow enough for government
organizations to keep up: over the past 16 years we've seen enough evidence
that they cannot move at the same speed as technology. That isn't a
criticism, but it *IS* an accurate observation.

I just think it would be a shame to keep real measurable Guidance and
advice out of our spec for another 5+ years, simply to align with an
outside group's time-line. Our end-users deserve better than that.

JF


On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion