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

Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:03:54 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FC76E6F7-71B5-4866-9E17-93567D3EC8F8@nomensa.com>
“So it seems like it has been decided that we will ship on a schedule rather than when the spec is ready. Does that not worry anyone else? I was hoping we could come to consensus about whether we were actually going to ship on a set schedule.”



I think that misses an important point about the approach, and a key difference in where we are now, and were WCAG 2.0 was before release.



I’ve also a question mostly aimed at Katie further down.



Difference in approach:

We would not ship 2.1 before it is “ready”, we would scope “ready” to be something that fits the time available.



We get consensus on as many proposed SCs as possible (say by summer 2017?), and spend the remaining time ironing out the issues people raise. Along that process some new SCs may be dropped for 2.1.



The difference in approach is that we change the scope, not the time. Within reason that is, I’m sure we could push a few weeks if it enabled a group of SCs to be kept in.



Difference to pre-WCAG 2.0:

We are building on WCAG 2, we are not baking the entire thing in one go, we are adding to a solid foundation.



I don’t think the proposed process would have been suitable for WCAG 2.0, it would be like releasing Silver half-done. Silver, whatever it turns out to be, will need to be perceived as at least as comprehensive as the 2.x series, so it’s initial release should not be at the 50% coverage stage!



However, for 2.1 we are fitting the new SCs into the WCAG 2 structure, that is a very different case.

For example, having joined (late) the LVTF, I’m looking at proposed SCs and trying to help fit them around the current WCAG 2 SCs. Having started from a user-requirements basis, there is a little ‘bending’ involved there, but having that foundation of WCAG 2.0 must be 10 times easier than getting them all together at the same time.



What is the objection to?

Is anyone objecting to the 2018 target for 2.1?  If not, we are spending a lot of time discussing what happens in the next charter. Wouldn’t that be better in the run up to the next charter?



If people are objecting to the 2018 target, I’d just point out that it is hardly a speeding up on the process:

-          WCAG 1.0: 1999

-          WCAG 2.0: 2008

-          WCAG 2.1: 2018 (target)



We *really* need a 2.1 to address things that can be (fairly) easily addressed in the 2.0 framework.



What happens after this charter is only being signaled at this stage, and can change based on what we learn from launching 2.1.



Is that being objected to?



Cheers,



-Alastair










Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 10:04:25 UTC

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