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

RE: Re[4]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:40:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGTebKO3iM2xLV6K34JZBV_V=c0g7xOESxMom3CRixoKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L." <rbradley@mitre.org>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Rachel,

Thank you for taking that initiative and sharing that information.

There are others ways to include updated content that 508 Coordinators and
others want and frankly need. Via the regular updates to the Techniques and
Understanding documents and a new focus on Best Practices that would allow
agencies to provide updated SC-like requirements as Best Practice add-ons,
that can been implemented *immediately* - but that the agency could not be
sued for not implementing until the government decides to update to the
WCAG  version that has taken those Best Practices and turned them in to SC.

I would prefer taking this Best Practices route to providing an incomplete
normative agile release that happen too often.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 19, 2016 9:12 PM, "Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L." <
rbradley@mitre.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> Just one input on the following comment:
>
>
>
> “Our WG happens to be void of any government employees who are able to
> commit the serious time needed at this juncture, currently, to this group
> and charter discussion – and for a whole host of good reasons. It is my
> opinion that had there been more active government members, this agile
> timeline charter discussion would have gone very differently.”
>
>
>
> I’ve spoken with 6 US government 508 coordinators over the past two weeks
> and asked as neutrally as possible what they saw as the tradeoffs between
> standards releases at a regular (likely 2-3 year interval) versus longer
> release times with more comprehensive standards and what they would prefer.
>
>
>
> These folks are the agency level leads not the legislative. Every one has
> expressed a preference for the regular, shorter releases.  They have stated
> that the legislative arm would likely not be able to keep up but strongly
> prefer having the more up to date standards available so they can choose to
> work off them, even when the 508 law isn’t mandating it.
>
>
>
> I realize this isn’t the same as regular government participation nor is
> it the same as a full chance for comment on the charter, but thought I’d
> pass it on.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Rachael
>
>
>
> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:51 PM
> *To:* 'Detlev Fischer' <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>; josh@interaccess.ie
> *Cc:* 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Re[4]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
>
>
>
> Detlev,
>
>
>
> I too now am irritated by hearing my own repeated position…..I do not
> enjoy making myself a pain in everyone’s side.
>
>
>
> There are two things going on – and what this is really about.
>
>
>
> One is my having to be **the** voice of one stakeholder group of WCAG –
> governments, who must implement it. Allen and Bruce have weighed in when
> they are able. But, I am not, nor have I ever been, a government employee –
> and really wish I was not the lone dissenting voice for them – I expect I
> am not able to do the job well enough, nor as accurately, as they would.
>
>
>
> Our WG happens to be void of any government employees who are able to
> commit the serious time needed at this juncture, currently, to this group
> and charter discussion – and for a whole host of good reasons. It is my
> opinion that had there been more active government members, this agile
> timeline charter discussion would have gone very differently.
>
>
>
> IMHO the government stakeholder group is vital to the success or failure
> of any WCAG version. I do have experience with getting WCAG taken up in
> regulations, and implemented, in a government in the US. There is a very
> specific set of steps, but various agencies must be consulted. The public
> and agencies must be given the opportunity to ask questions and comment –
> very much like this WG must go through those valuable vetting public
> reviews and addressing comments – and then all documentation must be
> updated – and a grandfathering date included. All of this adds time before
> a standard can be adopted.
>
>
>
>
>
> The second issue, is my own position (where I am wearing too many hats),
> that makes it necessary for me to be horribly cryptic – a thing I do not
> enjoy.
>
>
>
> My opinion that a very few who insisted on the 2 year timeline, and did
> not want to compromise, do not have the experience of; having written any
> WCAG SC, technique or understanding content – have no experience of
> defining, writing and launching a WCAG version in the W3C -- nor any
> experience implementing it or other standard in government – and then
> dismissed the comments of the WG members who do have this experience -- are
> therefore, IMHO, not in a very good position to be defining the direction
> and future of this WG and insisting that:
>
> 1.) WCAG timelines should be defined, and as agile (don’t finish -
> iterate), and do not need to be complete
>
> 2.) that government timelines should not be considered, and that
>
> 3.) promises made to the Cognitive community do not have to be kept
>
>
>
> ​​​​​Evidence? No crime has been commited. It is certainly my view that
> these few do not understand the implications of their actions – but think
> they are doing the **right** thing – as do I.
>
>
>
> Influential people? Yes, in that they were able to convince this august
> group and its chairs, almost entirely made up of people who were not on
> this WG for the release of 2.0, of their position. The few of us ‘geezers’,
> to a man (I think), disagreed with the agile timeline approach – along with
> the few government members.
>
>
>
> Behind-the-scenes, politics…..is a very real thing at the W3C – a fact I
> have only come to truly realize in the last year as an AC Rep.
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>
>
>
> *From:* Detlev Fischer [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:44 PM
> *To:* josh@interaccess.ie
> *Cc:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Re[4]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
>
>
>
> Just to let you know that I have not the foggiest idea what this huge
> discussion is really about. Katie, I am getting a bit irritated by your
> repeated reference to 'influential people' forcing an agenda behind the
> scenes and at the same time, your unwillingness to name them and provide
> any clear evidence. IMHO, this very discussion is not something that would
> encourage the experts needed to enter the WCAG WG.
>
> Best, Detlev
>
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2016 02:41:12 UTC

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