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

Re: Re[2]: charter update with two year cycle

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxEOmTs-rt_9EJkg_GPDbnWf8srWf8W7kmMfF9A5r3YSMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks for that update Andrew, I wasnt expecting you to cater to me. I was
asking others to consider compromise.

Thanks Josh.

Such a shame things have gotten to the point that consensus requires
background discussions....

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 7, 2016 9:00 AM, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> [Trimming the CC list]
>
> I urge everyone to hang in there. I'm a little concerned about talks of
> walking away etc- don't go Katie :-)
> We'll work out something that the group can use to walk the line between
> our needs and wants.
>
> We'll even try to satisfy the Sage of Baltimore.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>
> To: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <ryladog@gmail.com>
> Cc: "AlastairCampbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>; "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: 07/10/2016 13:47:24
> Subject: Re: charter update with two year cycle
>
> I think we need to understand the current WCAG model well before deciding
> to do something different.
>
> A 2 year cycle is a completely different model than what WCAG 2 was
> designed for. The Success Criteria were made to be technically agnostic
> BECAUSE technology is moving fast and no standard can keep up with the pace
> of technology advancement.  So the SCs have general statements such as "All
> functionality is available with keyboard" and "all images have text
> alternatives". We purposefully don't say terms specific to technology. The
> reason for that is because we knew it would take a long time to put out the
> standard and we didn't want to be out of date... we would keep up to date
> through the techniques, and many of us worked hard to keep the techniques
> as up to date as possible.
>
> Normative language takes a LONG time to get through. non normative advice
> on how to meet the requirements of the normative language can be updated
> frequently and easily. The good work of EO is an example of keeping up to
> date with how best to meet the requirements of the SC in today's context.
> Now naturally after a number of years those long term SCs need to be
> revised, but they were designed to have a longer shelf life than 2 years. I
> think we were hoping for 5-6 years... and we succeeded. There were almost
> no complaints in that time frame.
>
> If we want to move to a 2 year cycle, that is a completely different model
> and there is no need for the technology agnostic SC language. You can say
> "use this JavaScrip handler, and this HTML5 tag" right in the normative
> document ... and that gets us right back to the issue that we had in 2002,
> two years after WCAG 1. Being out of date but not being able to get new
> normative language quickly.
>
> Coming back to the question that started all of these cycles of work for
> all of us discussing this, I propose that we simply remove the sentence
> about "biannual" releases from the charter. We have no obligation to say
> that. Let's get 2.1 finished. New people to the group will learn a lot from
> the process, and let's re-evaluate at that point.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Alistair,
>>
>> Please do not think you have anything to do with my angst. You come
>> across just fine.
>>
>> Those of us with experience in developing this standard, working to get
>> it taken up in government regulations, and then imlementing them both
>> inside and outside of government - do bring some informative points to the
>> table as to how this is going to actually play out.
>>
>> I have been asking, all along, for a compromise between 2 and 10 years
>> for a regular cycle...to which I hear crickets from those pushing for two
>> years....
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea
>> 703-371-5545
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2016 6:55 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Katie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Firstly:
>>>
>>> > “This group, which has felt like home to me, has changed, and has not
>>> been the open-armed welcoming place, where all were *heard* and appreciated
>>> for their own perspective and experience.“
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m sorry if my emails come across as argumentative or as not listening,
>>> that is not my intent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On this topic in particular (where I don’t have in-depth experience with
>>> Government processes) I have tried to take an approach of identifying the
>>> key differences and pushing on those to understand, but that might come
>>> across too aggressively, I’m sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For Wilco’s points (his email arrived as my previous one left), I think
>>> the initial thing is to come up with a good ‘pitch’, and discuss that with
>>> people like the one Gregg suggested.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > “To the pro-2 year people, is there anything you can think of that can
>>> help address the concerns of the people who are against it?”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For Governments that specify a version of a standard (which is not all
>>> of them) and have very long time-frames: I would try pitching the
>>> dot-releases as regular updates they do not have to take up, but they
>>> should look to Silver / 3.0 as the next major release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > “And for the people against the 2-year release, are there anything you
>>> can think of that would allow for faster release of success criteria, while
>>> keeping to a 5+ year WCAG update schedule?”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the faster release of normative SCs *is* the issue, if
>>> people still agree with the approach of having 2.1 rather than extensions
>>> (which I do), then we are talking about updates to normative WCAG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we try to get all the SCs from the tasks forces into 2.1, we are in a
>>> situation of: Quick, Good, Cheap – pick any two.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ·         Quick & Good: We’d need to hire several FTE people to work on
>>> it, like WCAG 2.0 effectively had (is that an option?).
>>>
>>> ·         Quick & cheap: Inconsistent guidelines that fail all
>>> concerned.
>>>
>>> ·         Good & cheap: Next version in 5+ years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None of those are good options, so to me that is why we need an
>>> iterative/dot-release approach, to get around the quick/cheap/good issue by
>>> releasing new SCs in smaller chunks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Alastair
>>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 13:13:10 UTC

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