Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Hi Katie,

<chair hat off>
I agree with many of the points that Leonie and Alastair have 
raised/articulated.
</chair hat off>

In order to try to reach consensus - or at least be clearer on what we 
don't agree on.
I'd like to ask you similar questions to David.

1) Could you live with us signaling a more regular update cycle or some 
form? Where we  signal intent to have a three year cycle, but not 
necessarily committing to it.
We can of course review our status at those times,  and release new SCs 
etc if we feel it is appropriate at that time.

2) If this is the case and the work is substantial and taking real shape 
then the efforts/energy of the group will go fully behind Silver. 
Otherwise maintaining a more regular dot.x release cycle is a practical 
alternative to allow us to keep WCAG a vibrant relevant standard.

Can you live with this?

Thanks

Josh



------ Original Message ------
From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <ryladog@gmail.com>
To: "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 12/10/2016 13:26:45
Subject: Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

>Leonie,
>
>Thanks for your perspective and opinion.
>
>No where have I stated that 2.1 should be released 5 years from now, 
>nor that an updated suggested target for a follow-on be more than 5 
>years.
>
>I never suggested the group wait until other stakeholders can join the 
>WG to update the charter. I suggested gathering the opinion of others 
>who will implement this new WCAG in gov,  *right now* (next week) as 
>this is extremely important.
>
>I would like to see a broader set of these people approached with 
>non-biased language questions, approved by this WG.
>
>The more information we have, the better.
>
>How much this would delay the charter and this work is negligible 
>compared to the expected life and breadth of this standard.
>
>This is extremely important.
>
>Katie Haritos-Shea
>703-371-5545
>
>
>On Oct 12, 2016 1:44 PM, "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
>>On 12/10/2016 03:53, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
>>>That worries me. I think we need more discussion on this issue with
>>>users, advocacy groups, and government stakeholders - all of whom are
>>>currently lacking in force in our WG.
>>
>>Much as it would be good to have participation from more organisations 
>>in those groups, the WG cannot postpone making decisions against a 
>>time when that might happen.
>>
>>>
>>>The assertion that governments should 'keep up with us' (is not only
>>>arrogant, but), shows a clear lack in understanding the complexities 
>>>of
>>>building integrity and solid vetting into specifications prior to 
>>>uptake
>>>by governments.
>>
>>Which governments are you referring to?
>>
>>It is worth noting that legislators are not our only audience, and 
>>that not all legislators are as incapable of moving with the times as 
>>others.
>>
>>In the UK our disability legislation is not tied to WCAG, it simply 
>>requires that services are accessible to people with disabilities. 
>>WCAG is usually the benchmark of choice of course, but regular 
>>revisions that improve accessibility for different groups will 
>>actually make it easier for UK service providers to meet their legal 
>>obligations.
>>
>>>
>>>Laws have the ability to change discriminatory behavior via 
>>>enforcement.
>>>Had it not been for such laws, women wouldn't be able to vote, and
>>>segregation would still be in force.
>>
>>Yes they do, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. 
>>Legislators are not our only audience, and arguably not even our 
>>primary audience however.
>>
>>We have a responsibility to people with disabilities. We have multiple 
>>TFs working on multiple SCs, some of which will reach maturity sooner 
>>than others. Postponing the release of mature SCs in order to wait for 
>>other SCs to catch up, does a disservice to the people most likely to 
>>benefit from those mature Scs.
>>
>>We also have a responsibility to content authors. If we have mature 
>>SCs that have attained WG consensus, we should not withhold them from 
>>being released for use in the wild - where they will start to have a 
>>positive impact.
>>
>>>
>>>WCAG has provided a gold standard tool for all to point to. Updates
>>>should maintain that rigorous testability and vetting process to
>>>maintain the integrity of the Accessibility specs from the W3C.
>>
>>The two things are not mutually exclusive. a regular release cycle 
>>does not mean a drop in quality, and can in fact improve quality in 
>>certain circumstances.
>>
>>Every SC will need to attain WG consensus, having been put through its 
>>paces as always. If an SC doesn't make the grade for one release, it 
>>can simply be deferred to the next release - and with a relatively 
>>short time between releases, there is less concern of an SC not making 
>>it into a release at all.
>>
>>We then avoid the situation where an SC is crammed in before it has 
>>reached maturity, because we remove the fear that if an SC isn't 
>>included now it could be umpteen years before the next release.
>>
>>>
>>>The majority of organizations will not implement accessibity
>>>requirements unless forced to by regulations.
>>>
>>
>>This may be the case in the US. Since (as noted above) not all 
>>legislation is tied to WCAG, it feels like a strawman argument in this 
>>context.
>>
>>>Isn't the end goal of WCAG to assist developers and governments to 
>>>help
>>>users with disabilities have a fair shot? I really do not understand
>>>this stance to not *help* governments acheive this goal to the best 
>>>of
>>>our ability.
>>
>>It isn't clear why a regular release cycle would prevent governments 
>>from doing this?
>>
>>It seems to me that governments that reference WCAG can either 
>>continue to point to 2.0, adopt each 2.x version as it is released, or 
>>switch to any subsequent version as/when they choose to do so. In each 
>>case the status quo of accessibility will either be maintained or 
>>advanced.
>>
>>For authors it will help them support disabled people better if they 
>>have access to the best set of mature SCs as/when they become 
>>available - or at least without having to wait a decade between 
>>releases.
>>
>>>
>>>AC Reps and W3M should not be whom we are trying to please as much as
>>>our number one stakeholder, the user. This specification will mean
>>>nothing if it looses intergity and usefullness to them, by not being
>>>adopted - because it was treated like an agile web language - instead 
>>>of
>>>the life-altering accessibility standard that supports human rights.
>>
>>Given that more than one AC rep has a disability, that many more than 
>>one AC rep represents an accessibility agency, advocacy group, 
>>government or other organisation with a vested interest in 
>>accessibility, trying to create a "them and us" split doesn't seem 
>>helpful.
>>
>>No-one is suggesting we adopt Agile. Agile is a software development 
>>methodology, not a methodology for creating standards.
>>
>>The suggestion is that we maintain the same level of rigour and 
>>quality, but instead of waiting five years for 30 new Scs to reach 
>>maturity, we release smaller batches at more frequent intervals.
>>
>>No-one would be forced to use the latest 2.x version, but equally 
>>no-one would be forced to wait too long before being able to use new 
>>and mature SCs that will benefit people with disabilities.
>>
>>Léonie.
>>
>>--
>>@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>>
>>