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

Re: charter update with two year cycle

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:59:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzf6K8t6Di3uZzMg+bB+ai3JZbhj5qZp7gLAqBVVjHSrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Correction:
> then the next round of re-Chartering (in 2020 or 2021)

should have read: then the next round of re-Chartering (in 2018 or 2019)

JF

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:55 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> > "...ensure that the voluntary guidelines are consistent, to the extent
> feasible and appropriate, with the technical and functional performance
> criteria included in the national and international accessibility standards
> identified by the commission as relevant to student use of post-secondary
> electronic instructional materials and
> related technologies..."
>
> Thanks for this Laura, it is more fact-based evidence that US Regulators
> *can* adapt and work with the speed by which technology moves, without
> waiting long periods of time between updates. It also echoes what
> Regulators in other countries such as Great Britain (this is the *WORLD*
> Wide Web Consortium after all) have adopted. My concern is that we are
> allowing fear to influence our decision making, and I personally believe
> that fear is unfounded.
>
>
> Jason wrote:
> > I think it’s a sufficiently attractive proposal that it should be tried
> in version 2.1 by initiating a schedule-based release process, however,
> with a review thereafter to decide whether to proceed with a further 2.x
> release or whether the remaining proposals should go directly into the next
> major revision. In effect, I favor postponing any decision about “agile”
> until the completion of WCAG 2.1.
>
> There are a few problems with this:
>
> First, if we only adopt "agile" for one cycle, then it isn't really agile,
> it's just another stop along the way of a waterfall process.
>
> Second, it will continue to apply pressure to the existing Task Forces and
> the Working Group as a whole to get "everything" ready and out the door in
> the 2.1 time-frame (target date: Q1 of 2018), which means that a) either
> we'll miss that date, or, b) to meet that date we'll need to leave some
> things (*LOTS* of things) on the cutting room floor. If one of our prime
> directives is "Solid and Stable" new Success Criteria, we simply do not
> have enough time to get them all done in the next year/18 months.
>
> Third, I've already heard a personal and heart-felt plea to ensure that
> sufficient resources are directed to assist the COGA Group "meet the
> deadline", which suggest to me that if we *DON'T* have a "second deadline"
> (and even a "third deadline") that this group (and possibly also LV) will
> next end up struggling with the "who we are leaving behind" argument, which
> will suck up time and resources, and once again become an acrimonious
> debate that will take us off task.
>
> However, if we have a clear road map that suggests that any SC that aren't
> quite mature enough for the first (dot) release, then, as Alastair notes,
> we continue on those remaining items for the next time-boxed release: the
> daily/weekly/monthly work of this Working Group will continue on in exactly
> the same fashion, except the Success Criteria we collectively feel are
> "done" can be released into the wild sooner rather than later, and
> developers and toolmakers can start to take them up (not because the HAVE
> to, but because they want to - which *HAS* to be a positive thing). This
> way however we can also have a high-level of assurance that 'missed'
> proposed Success Criteria from groups like COGA and LV don't get shunted
> aside until "the next thing, whenever it finally arrives (in a 3 to 5 year
> time-period, which may end up being a 5 to 8 year time-period)".
>
>
>
> > If it’s successful and yields general satisfaction, then the Working
> Group can request a new Charter either to complete Silver or to continue to
> develop Silver and (in parallel) to deliver a 2.2 version.
>
> That is essentially what the Charter is proposing now, and it is based (as
> far as I understand it) on feedback from both W3C staffers and senior AC
> and even AB representatives of the W3C that I and others heard at the TPAC
> meetings a few weeks ago. The whole point of signalling our longer-range
> intent within a shorter-timeline Charter is to advise the AC of our bigger
> plans, which those AC/AB reps that *I* spoke with at TPAC have indicated is
> a positive thing.
>
> The plan is essentially what you are suggesting (with the additional
> inclusion of a "calendar" of regular, metered updates), but since the
> Charter only would last 2 or 3 years (after which we'd need to re-state or
> adjust our vision), we're not bound to that beyond the life of the current
> Charter. If at the end of the next Charter (which we are discussing now) we
> realize we *HAVE* made a tactical error, we can shift gears then: if, on
> the other hand, it turns out that this new 'agile' process is meeting our
> needs, then the next round of re-Chartering (in 2020 or 2021) will be
> easier, as we will be continuing along the same path outlined today.
>
> There is another reality as well: this WG is *already* working on a
> parallel project/process (Silver), and that needs to be communicated in our
> re-chartering as well. If we don't do that, there is a real possibility
> that the holders of the purse-strings at the W3C (the AC) will ask this
> Working Group to move the Silver Project into an unfunded Community Group,
> which will make it even harder for us to continue with real progress on
> that front. This is a very real fear and possibility: one that I know *I*
> heard explicitly at TPAC, and one that I believe others in this Working
> Group did as well. For this reason I believe it is critical that the
> Charter clearly outline this fact as well.
>
> Finally, it's important (I think) to clearly understand what we (I?) are
> advocating for in the Charter: there are specific, measurable deliverables,
> and then there is another more conceptual, informational aspect which is
> this notion that we are signalling our intent to regular updates in a
> two-year cycle, whether that's a 2.2, or Silver, or something else entirely
> again. However, because that aspirational goal is actually for dates beyond
> the length of the current proposed Charter (2 or 3 years), we're not
> actually committing to delivering them as specific deliverables - it's just
> "our plan", and the plan addresses (in part) the fact that we wont get all
> of the proposed SC coming from the TFs today processed in time for the 2018
> mandated deliverable (2.1).
>
> And so, when it comes time to recharter again (in 2020, or 2021), we'll
> have this foundation that states that one of the deliverable for that next
> charter will be more updates to the "guidance", whether that's a 2.2, or
> Silver... (but we can't say for sure now, because we don't know. But we
> *do* know there will be more SC coming forward as part of that charter, in
> keeping with the goal of regular 2-year updates). I personally think this
> is as close as we can get to having our cake and eating it too.
>
>
> Earlier, Gregg wrote:
>
> > The one thing to keep in mind though — is that a regulatory standard is
> completely different than a technical one.
>
> Which raises a fundamental question: is this group working on a regulatory
> standard or a technical standard?
>
> While I think most of us would suggest that there is a large part of both
> in the WCAG Standard, we need to remember that the World Wide Web
> Consortium is a global technical standards body, and not a regulatory body,
> and that is an important fact to remember. Matching the cadence of how the
> W3C is working today benefits us; attempting to work against the current
> W3C process can only end up frustrating our efforts within the
> member-funded W3C.
>
> When Gregg writes of "...review by the white house office of management
> and budget etc..." I have to personally wonder why our colleagues in
> countries like New Zealand (Jason Kiss), Japan (Makoto Ukei), Great Britain
> (Alastair Campbell), Canada (David MacDonald) and numerous others would
> care about what happens in Washington? And more importantly, why would we
> want to hold back good, solid, ready-to-use Success Criteria which benefits
> real people with real issues simply because of how US regulatory groups
> operate? (*Especially* since the evidence in front of us is that they
> cannot always move quickly enough to address our core constituents, if the
> Section 508 refresh is our bench-mark. I say that with no offense to the
> good and hard working and committed folks at the US Access Board, who I
> suspect share the same frustrations we do, but it *is* a fact to
> acknowledge).
>
> That said however, I think this is an important point to contemplate: are
> we writing WCAG.next for the regulators, or for the end users and content
> creators?
>
> Yes, Section 508 is important, but I also wryly note that the US
> Department of Justice is applying WCAG 2.0 in their efforts today (see
> also: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-enters-set
> tlement-agreement-peapod-ensure-peapod-grocery-delivery-website), and
> most global organizations on the web today understand that the web is
> indeed global: Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook... they've all adopted
> WCAG 2.0 as their standard (with no comment on how well they are meeting
> that standard) already.  And anecdotal evidence suggests that these
> organizations and others are already looking beyond WCAG 2.0, and adding
> additional accessibility requirements internally within their respective
> orgs. - they aren't waiting for the US government to set the bar, they are
> setting it themselves. (Case in point? BBC's Mobile Accessibility
> Guidelines - http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/
> accessibility/mobile). Asking the W3C membership to wait another 5-7
> years before we catch-up to what the BBC produced 3 years ago is just a
> reason to *STOP* funding this Working Group, and let territorial
> "industries" set their own markers. I don't think we're at that point yet,
> but continued slow-to-creeping progress doesn't help us.
>
> When I look at how US laws and policy have impacted real accessibility on
> the web today, it's not Section 508, it's laws like the 21st Century
> Communications Act (web-based video captions FTW) and the ACAA (Aircraft
> Carriers Accessibility Act) which pushed airline websites to WCAG 2.0 *AND*
> started making self-serve kiosk more accessible. My take-away there is that
> smaller and focused efforts (even regulatory ones) move quicker, get
> adopted sooner, and have real impact today - not 5, 7, 10 years down the
> road. No, based on those indicators, and the quote that Laura provided at
> the top of this email, it seems US-based regulators can and do change, and
> we need to help them catch up to the 21st Century, and not coddle them into
> believing that 5-10-15 years between updates is normal and OK.
>
> That may seem harsh, but it is also realistic - I've said it already many
> times: I am more concerned about addressing the needs of our users than I
> am the regulators, and I will continue to (personally) stand behind that
> ideal. My hope is that the consensus position of this group collects around
> that ideal, and I make no apologies for advocating for that position.
>
> Cheers!
>
> JF
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew and all,
>>
>> On 10/7/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>>
>> One fact that I am aware of is the Accessible Instructional Materials
>> in Higher Education (AIM-HE) Act [1] has been introduced in the U.S
>> Congress.
>>
>> Among the duties of the new commission are:
>>
>> "...develop and issue voluntary guidelines for accessible
>> postsecondary electronic instructional materials, and related
>> technologies..."
>>
>> It doesn't mention WCAG but it does say:
>>
>> "...ensure that the voluntary guidelines are consistent, to the extent
>> feasible and appropriate, with the technical and functional
>> performance criteria included in the national and international
>> accessibility standards identified by the commission as relevant to
>> student use of postsecondary electronic instructional materials and
>> related technologies..."
>>
>> The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the Association of
>> American Publishers (AAP), the Software and Information Industry
>> Association (SIIA), the American Council on Education (ACE), EDUCAUSE
>> have all been involved. If you or anyone else have contacts in those
>> organizations, they may be able to provide more info.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> References:
>> [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6122/text
>> Also:
>> https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2016/9/accessible-instructiona
>> l-materials-bill-introduced
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 19:59:34 UTC

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