Re: charter update with two year cycle

I made a mistake in using [sic] - I was trying to indicate that I was paraphrasing.

To that point, I do think that my paraphrasing is in-line with the original comment.  Everyone is welcome to their opinions, what I’m asking is for “4-5 years is the right length and here are the top three reasons why I think that”.  Then we have something to discuss.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

From: David MacDonald <<>>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:50
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <<>>
Cc: WCAG <<>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>>, Katie GMAIL <<>>
Subject: Re: charter update with two year cycle

>>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".

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902



  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<>

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bailey, Bruce <<>> 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 [<>]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <<>>; AlastairCampbell <<>>
Cc: WCAG <<>>
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 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.


Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 18:03:44 UTC