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

Re: charter update with two year cycle

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:51:20 -0400
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <81057954-5b06-bca0-3462-23c8a5632136@spellmanconsulting.com>
While I agree with Jon that we should not try to get "biannual" into the 
charter, I don't want us to walk away from striving for a 2 year cycle 
for dot releases.

  * We have a responsibility to PwD not to fall so far behind the
    technology again
  * We have a responsibility to the companies that are driving new
    technology to keep up
  * It makes us more in line with the rest of the W3C working group
    common practices
  * It gives the WG purpose,  direction and milestones to accomplish.
  * Greater relevance of WCAG will attract new people to the WG.

<alert for potentially offensive material>

But here is the real long-term reason:  The old folks of A11y are 
getting older -- myself included.  It's time to start turning the reins 
over to the generation that grew up with the internet and smart phones. 
That is not going to happen if we old farts keep standing in the way of 
new vital work.  Let's stop driving 40 miles an hour on the superhighway.

</ end offensive material>

Jeanne
On 10/7/2016 10:01 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
>
> +1
>
> ​​​​​
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****ryladog@gmail.com* 
> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile* 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office: 
> 703-371-5545 **|****@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>**
>
> *From:*Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 7, 2016 9:47 AM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: charter update with two year cycle
>
> ØComing 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.
>
> Exactly my thoughts David.  There is no reason to include this 
> language in the current charter because it only covers the timeframe 
> for 2.1 – so why include it – let’s focus on getting the proposed SC 
> tightened up to a place where they can make it into 2.1
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
> Chief Accessibility Officer
>
> SSB BART Group
>
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
>
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
>
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook 
> <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog 
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
>
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! 
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>
> *From:*David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 07, 2016 8:47 AM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea
> *Cc:* AlastairCampbell; WCAG
> *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 <http://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 
> <mailto: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 <tel:703-371-5545>
>
> On Oct 7, 2016 6:55 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com 
> <mailto: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 18:51:55 UTC

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