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

Re: charter update with two year cycle

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:50:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDY-+8MnC859NC1pxcM5RrrgMheZifjH6adWv=0vT=e=qA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
>>I do urge people to bring facts to the discussion, ...This discussion
started with a message saying [sic] “2 years is too short, 4-5 years is the
appropriate length”, but with little factual information to support that
conclusion.

I think I need to say this is a misquote. Luckily the email is right there
to copy. I said

"I think we need to drop the 2 year refresh cycle for dot releases
commitment from the charter. ... I think  4 to 5 year cycle is the
appropriate ballpark time frame for refresh of the SCs."

I am not presenting my opinion as fact. Arguing against something wasn't
actually said is called a "straw man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



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 11:11 AM, Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov>
wrote:

> I would like to let the group know that my management has quelled my
> personal anxiety about the charter mentioning 2.1.
>
> So no, talking about WCAG 2.1 does not have any potential to disrupt the
> Section 508 process.
>
> The Access Board does not have an opinion on whether a two year routine
> cycle for releases of 2.x would be a problem.  We would have to see a
> couple iterations.  I can only assume our opinion would be much the same as
> everyone else.
>
> Speaking personally again, I  think a two year cycles is very challenged
> to find a sweet spot.  Imagine 2.2 comes out has 20+ new SC.  Or imagine
> 2.2 comes out and has exactly one new SC, because we are committed to being
> boxed by the calendar -- since that is part of agile.  Either way, I think
> people's reaction will be like, "Thanks, I will wait for 3.0."
>
> I think we are much better served deciding what should be addressed by
> each point iteration, and then publishing when that work is done.  The
> agile model for publish-to-the-calendar works great for the supplemental
> guidance.  I don't see upside for picking a date for 2.2.
>
> As was discussed on this week's call, the Federal government citations to
> WCAG 2.0 are to the dated version.  So the something new and better being
> available does not change what the previsions citation required.
>
> I will also like to clarify that the Federal government rulemaking can be
> very quick, since there is a mechanism called "direct final rule" which is
> designed to let agencies updated cited standards and address other purely
> ministerial concerns.   The Access Board would not have to even issue
> notice and comment.  But, of course, we would have to review what is in 2.1
> to make that decision.
>
> --
> Bruce Bailey
> Accessibility IT Specialist
> U.S. Access Board
> 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
> Washington, DC  20004-1111
>
>
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:36 AM
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; AlastairCampbell <
> acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: charter update with two year cycle
>
> 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.
>
> AWK: No doubt.  I believe that we all bring informative points to the
> table. That’s why we are listening.
>
> 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, there are discussions going on with the chairs, and the chairs also
> have other aspects to their employment, so won’t always respond
> immediately.
> I have been reaching out for additional information.  I’ve reached out the
> Access Board again (and have in the past, which I mentioned in the meeting
> on Tuesday), I’ve also reached out to contacts in Canada, Australia, and
> the EU, and have also spoken with Lainey Feingold.  I expect that we will
> have more information to discuss soon.
>
> I do urge people to bring facts to the discussion, which is what I’m
> working to do.  This discussion started with a message saying [sic] “2
> years is too short, 4-5 years is the appropriate length”, but with little
> factual information to support that conclusion. I’ve heard numerous times
> that government policy people and people in the legal community are opposed
> to a faster timeline, but in the conversations I’ve had so far (details to
> be provided soon) the evidence is to the contrary.
>
> I am working on a matrix to compare and contrast the different options to
> allow us to come to a reasoned, evidence-based decision on this topic. Like
> every other decision, we are making it via a consensus process, and there
> will be a call for consensus.  If at the end of the call you feel like the
> process has been violated and the decision is not a consensus one, there is
> an escalation pathway for complaints. I don’t anticipate that will be
> necessary.
>
> AWK
>
Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 15:50:39 UTC

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