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

The reason cfc's were established was to allow for a consensus position to
be reached by the working group without having to be on the calls, right?

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 13, 2016 2:20 AM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

> Jason,
> In this email you indicate that your preference is to have all language
> about regular updates removed from the draft charter.  This was a
> compromise position established on the Working Group call, in response to
> the the comments on the survey which was sent out to the working group (
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161010charter/results), and in
> response to the discussion on the call. The compromise position was to
> address specifically the issue that you are raising.
>
> Can you live with the compromise?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 08:49
> To: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, Katie GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 08:49
>
> In reviewing the draft, I missed the sentence that mentioned the proposed
> three-year cycle. My preference would be to have all language about regular
> updates removed from the draft Charter – that is, no signals at all.
>
> I think the fact that we’re planning to complete Silver is enough of a
> signal that the era of only non-normative work with no revision of WCAG has
> ended. My suggested Charter provision would be to signal that we might
> decide to issue further 2.x releases, depending on the state of 3.0 toward
> the end of the next Charter period, but without placing any schedule on
> delivery of either 2.2 or Silver (i.e., this is to be decided based on the
> experience over the next few years).
>
>
>
> *From:* josh@interaccess.ie [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie
> <josh@interaccess.ie>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:41 AM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>