Commentary from Lainey Feingold and Dan Goldstein

WCAG’ers,

I corresponded with Lainey Feingold and Dan Goldstein about the rapid release dilemma.  Lainey and Dan (and Linda Dardarian) responded to questions in email about updating WCAG in June 2016 (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2dot1charter/results – see Katie’s response for email content) and I followed up with them.

I asked:

Question: In your email from June 30, 2016, you wrote "We would not like to see a WCAG 2.1 or a WCAG 3.0”, but what we are proposing is in line with that. Based on the primary concerns cited in that email (possible renumbering, WCAG 2.0 being obsoleted) being addressed in our plan for WCAG 2.1 and the primary concern for more significant changes or a successor standard (needing more time for field to adjust) being addressed in the plan for Silver, do you feel like the plan as proposed is sound, or do you have concerns?

Response:
(Dan) I think the plan does a fine job of keeping the relationship between 2.0 and subsequent versions intelligible and traceable.
(Lainey) I agree with what Dan has written here.  From the US advocacy perspective, I think it is critical that 2.0 remains the same and the SC in 2.0 remain the same, which is how you have explained it. As I understand it, organizations can meet WCAG 2.0 NOW, and decide later whether they also want to take on the new SC in 2.1 without being afraid that whatever they do now will have to be undone in 2018.

Question: Do you feel that the existence of a WCAG 2.1 in 2018 will cause any problems with lawsuits or structured negotiations?

Response:
(Dan) I think that the need for updating/clarification is such that it will be our job as lawyers to work around any obstacles that the updates create.

Question: The Working Group is discussing the cadence of updates to WCAG.  There is agreement that 10 years between updates is insufficient.  One proposal is for WCAG to adopt a more rapid cycle, to release an update every 2 years in order to ensure that the gaps identified in the standard relative to new technologies can be addressed. It is expected that like WCAG 2.1, these updates would build on to the current version, and existing Success Criteria would remain unchanged in order to ensure backward compatibility. With a short time-frame for spec development it is also possible that there isn’t enough time to achieve consensus on every item proposed for a release, so rather than extend the timeline the group would defer non-consensed items to the following update which would then be delivered on a predictable schedule.

  1.  Do you think that regular updates on a biennial basis would create problems for your efforts?
  2.  Do you think that there is value in a public update schedule for WCAG, so individuals and policy makers will know when to expect updates?

Response:
(Dan) as someone w/o a technical background and as someone unfamiliar with the process for generating new versions, I don’t feel that I can comment on the frequency with which updates should issue, but I can imagine technology developments that would drive shorter and longer periods.  I think announcing a plan for biennial updates would undercut our ability to negotiate, because companies would always want to see the next one before agreeing to changes.  I think the announcement (as opposed to an internal goal) reduces the value of your standard in its use.
(Lainey) I think the explanatory notes and your public statements are crucial so this announcement doesn’t fuel a “now we really don’t know what to do so we won’t do anything” response from industry and government.  i think It is really imperative to be clear in every announcement  that 2.0 is a standard that means something and is viable even while you work to fill in the gaps.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk