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

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

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 08:50:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGttVyPnu-s_okk4-PSB9tmXdd4RWb2GW9TJOB5690eiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>

I could live with what 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.

Katie Haritos-Shea

On Oct 12, 2016 3:38 PM, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> 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
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 12:50:49 UTC

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