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: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:54:08 +0000
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15D8D3CE-98AF-48B1-A539-618DEEE9571A@adobe.com>
Comments within:

We got here by throwing in the 'every two year update' idea just a short time ago. (However, that idea may have been hovering in some minds a bit longer)

AWK: Katie, this is simply not accurate.  We’ve been discussing a two-year update cycle since at least April (see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models for some info in Option 2.2). It has been hovering in people’s minds, and in discussions on and off of the calls.

AWK: That allowed people to provide breathing room, they thought - "oh, what we can't get done in time  we'll push off to the next version. And let's make the next version very soon, so those missed SC won't be too far behind ("wait, that's like agile, great, the AC will love it":....:-)

AWK: That is correct.  If items cannot be approved (perhaps because of a dependence on technologies that are not ready, perhaps because more time is needed to pull it all together, perhaps other reasons) then the discussion we had as a group was generally supportive of publishing what is ready and being ready to publish again in a relatively short window (short by historical WCAG standards). The feeling was that if we wait for everything to be complete there will always be more that we could do and we start to extend the timeline indefinitely.

The *original* plan was a stable complete 2.1 standard.

AWK: That was part of the original plan.

When folks realized there wasn't time to meet the 2018 deadline, all of the sudden,  the agile plan seemed like a great idea. Let's iterate! It doesn't have to be complete because we have another one coming in 2 years.

AWK: I don’t know that there isn’t time to meet the 2018 deadline yet. With close to 50 new SC and one TF that started a year after the others, sure, it is possible, and perhaps likely, that everything won’t make it in for 2018. I’m planning to get in everything that we can.

Some annoying folks tried to point out that this 'every two years a new standard comes out' probably would surprise governments and present problems for them - and quality issues for us and them.

AWK: And other annoying folks were doing work to talk with the governments, and I believe that we have established that they won’t be surprised.

I became worried the minute I saw the 'two years' in the draft Charter, even after bringing it up on calls and email many times, but figured a compromise would be reached.

Starting close to TPAC were four specific mentions, by influential people, of putting off most or all of the COGA SC to 2.2 and/or Silver, since Mobile and LV seemed to be readier - that I heard myself.

AWK: I have not heard anyone say anything about putting off most or all of COGA work to 2.2 or Silver.  I certainly have not said that, and if you are under the impression that either Josh or I have said that please allow me to correct the record here. I understand that this may be the concern that this could happen, but I don’t believe that it will.

Then, as the 2 year folks dug in,  and no compromise seemed to be forthcoming. I began to realize that apparently I was messing with someones' or some groups' specific plan. And what I feared for the COGA people would most likely also come to pass.

Which meant we weren't going to keep our word to COGA, governments and others might panic, we wouldn't have enough time for quality build, test and comment cycles, and *complete* was no longer necessary.

AWK: This is taking a big leap. We built the 2.1 plan so that we would have time for these cycles.  Complete is a challenging word to use for an accessibility standard.  I’m sure that many people might feel that WCAG 2.0 wasn’t complete.  As technology evolves, as it continually does beneath our feet and as our timeline progresses, WCAG 2.1 might never be "complete”. WCAG 2.1 will be more complete than WCAG 2.0.  WCAG 2.1 will provide benefits to end users with disabilities.  Will we all say “I wish we could have gotten just this one more thing into 2.1”?  Absolutely. Will we appreciate in ~2021 that we are able to again get improvements out?  I believe that we will.

The concerns of some seasoned folks was ignored, or maybe deemed 'unimportant', 'out-of-touch' or 'fear mongering'.

AWK: none of the above is accurate, at least for the chairs and staff contact.  I don’t have insight into what lurks in other’s minds.

Then I got mad. Did it show?...:-)

AWK: Yes. Was it always appropriate? No.

For what it is worth I have never, in 16 years, ever disrupted the WCAG process. But then, I had no reason to. Consensus was king.

Comments like mine, Gregg's, Jason's, Allen's, Lisa's and David's had never been dismissed out of hand by chairs before.

AWK: You’re characterizing what is in my mind or what is in Josh’s mind, and doing so inaccurately. No one’s comments have been dismissed out of hand.

Thank you for your work on this and other items, Katie. We don’t agree on everything, and we may not come to full agreement on this just yet, but we are operating according to the WCAG decision policy, so whether the outcome is the way you want or I want, it will be a consensus opinion.


Katie Haritos-Shea

On Oct 13, 2016 5:23 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
I think this is a key one:

KHS: I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC from any of the TFs in 2.1

As one of those less experienced in this process, I am assuming we don’t have time/resource to work through all of the possible SCs for 2018.

I’m struggling to square that position, as we have to either:

·         Do a sub-set of the total SCs for 2.1, or

·         Extend the timeline, or

·         Increase the resource.

Or perhaps focus on one task force at a time? (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, I’m grasping at straws.)

We’ve had consensus on the 2.1 approach (rather than extensions), people are committed to 2.1 in 2018, and we all understand the constraints of people’s time. I don’t understand how we can get to this point and then baulk?

What I am assuming is that we can go through a process where the SCs are evaluated, worked on, and a “stable”, coherent set be made into 2.1.  I don’t know how big a sub-set that will be, but there are plenty of fairly low-hanging fruit that would make it worthwhile.

If that assumption isn’t correct, we might as well admit that 2.1 will be on the same timescale as Silver, scrap it, and focus on Silver. (Which would probably torpedo our charter, and I would very much disagree with taking that route.)

Sorry for the frustration evident in this email, I’m just trying to work out how we got to this stage and what it means.


Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 21:54:46 UTC

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