- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:54:31 -0400
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxFtYr7RTxQ8RXNftMdpsvgCP0sLSrC9_aBHRFZX8qmOYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Please see my comments 'KHS' in line.... -- I am objecting to saying every x number of years - unless it is reasonable for government to implement in laws (based on direct discussions this WG will have with these individuals), and for organizations not to 'pass' on 2.1 "because 2.2 will be out on two or three years” AWK: This was discussed on the call and we arrived at a compromise with David’s language. Specifically, we indicate a longer expected duration, and we are also saying that this is approximate and that we will provide details in the AG project plan resource, which will need to be agreed on and created. KHS: Yes, I know, but I would like that information to be based on what implementers feel is reasonable - via a discussion with them. As you know I was unable to join this call. ------ AWK: I have no interest in passing on COGA SC either, but that isn’t a question that is on the table in this charter. Rather, that is a question for the proposal processing work of 2.1. KHS: Which could be effected based by any timelimits set in the charter. Without the knowledge of a reasonable amount of time governments need to have to implement updates. Additionally, it may be information that could be added to the charter. ------ AWK: Other SC proposals have already been made ( https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2 and https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/3) which are outside of the TF work and will be considered by the WG. KHS: Great! Lets hope it is not limited to three. I had the feeling thongs had changed in this regard. ------ -- I am objecting to those (inexperienced in this process) who think writing, testing and vetting SC will either be easier than it is, or feel, putting off to a following release is OK AWK: This may or may not be a valid objection, but is not part of the charter review. KHS: It is valid to me, and speaks to the reasonableness and expectations of the current timeline and update schedule. --------- -- I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC from any of the TFs in 2.1 AWK: I object to that as well, but that isn’t a question that is on the table in this charter. Rather, that is a question for the proposal processing work of 2.1. KHS: Well I think it is, again, and also speaks to the reasonableness and expectations of the current timeline and update schedule. Katie Haritos-Shea 703-371-5545 On Oct 12, 2016 8:49 PM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: > Katie, > Comments inline: > > -- I am objecting to saying every x number of years - unless it is > reasonable for government to implement in laws (based on direct discussions > this WG will have with these individuals), and for organizations not to > 'pass' on 2.1 "because 2.2 will be out on two or three years” > > AWK: This was discussed on the call and we arrived at a compromise with > David’s language. Specifically, we indicate a longer expected duration, > and we are also saying that this is approximate and that we will provide > details in the AG project plan resource, which will need to be agreed on > and created. > > "The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility > on a regular interval of approximately three years, starting with WCAG 2.1." > > -- I am objecting to 2.1 passing on too many COGA SC, and pushing them off > to 2.2 or 3.0. We made a promise, 10 years ago to the individuals on this > working group who tried to provide COGA SC at that time - that we really > would use the next version to get those SC and needs addressed. We made a > promise to the COGA community around the world as well. I do not want this > WG to lose their faith in our promises > AWK: I have no interest in passing on COGA SC either, but that isn’t a > question that is on the table in this charter. Rather, that is a question > for the proposal processing work of 2.1. > > -- I am objecting to those (inexperienced in this process) who think > writing, testing and vetting SC will either be easier than it is, or feel, > putting off to a following release is OK > AWK: This may or may not be a valid objection, but is not part of the > charter review. > > -- I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC from > any of the TFs in 2.1 > AWK: I object to that as well, but that isn’t a question that is on the > table in this charter. Rather, that is a question for the proposal > processing work of 2.1. > > -- I am objecting to not providing improved SC for the existing set, that > are not COGA, LV or MOBILE specific. In other words to providing new SC to > the main set that don't fall under a TF. > AWK: Other SC proposals have already been made (https://github.com/w3c/ > wcag21/issues/2 and https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/3) which are > outside of the TF work and will be considered by the WG. > > Seperate from the charter, but an outcome and related to its development > via objections and developments over the past year: > > -- I want to draw attention to and object to the loss of transparency and > true consensus, that this WG was founded and run on. > AWK: The chairs note what you are saying and would like to hear from > others (not on this thread please) if they feel the same. > > Thanks, > AWK > > > I hope I am being clear. > > Katie Haritos-Shea > 703-371-5545 > > On Oct 12, 2016 6:51 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Katie, >> >> >> >> It feels a little odd arguing about this as I’m fairly ambivalent about >> the timeline after 2.1, but as I read through the feedback from various >> people, there was a logical solution to me. >> >> >> >> It was from Makoto, who said: >> >> “If there will be any conflicting SC in WCAG 2.1, it could cause a >> problem. I don't want a situation that a website conforming to WCAG 2.1 >> doesn't conform to WCAG 2.0. >> >> >> >> So it'll be okay if it'll looks like: >> >> - Baseline: WCAG 2.0 >> >> - Advanced Level: WCAG 2.1, 2.2...” >> >> >> >> The backwards compatibility in the 2.x line is what enables this >> approach, because the 2.0 version is not invalid or outdated, it just >> (potentially) isn’t as full as the latest version. That does cause us >> headaches (I would prefer to re-do some of them), but it does enable the >> approach. >> >> >> >> We can’t move at the pace of the slowest Government, and even someone >> involved in Section 508 (the slowest update to date?) has said the approach >> should not be problematic. >> >> >> >> The main thing I’m struggling to understand why this is an issue for* >> this* charter, are you objecting to a 2.1 in 2018? >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> >> >> I would prefer that - either these people join a call where we can all >> ask questions, or, we draft a specific introduction with questions that is >> approved by this WG. >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 18:55:02 UTC