Re: Is it 2 or 3 years that WCAG will be updated? - I thought it was approx. 3

> The crux though, is, that if those new SC aren’t adopted and required by
government in their regulations – than few users will benefit from those
important new SC – because they won’t be implemented other than by a few
accessibility companies, disability groups and other well-meaning
organizations building mobile apps.

This is your assertion.
​But where is your proof?​

I guess
​you​
've just been speaking to different clients than I have, as most developers
I speak with not only want to do the right thing, but they are thirsting
for guidance and specifics on *how* to do the right thing.
​They aren't going to wait for a government to mandate what they should do,
they'll do what they believe is best, and my fear is that larger
organizations will start to write their own "guidelines and standards" (
​​
BBC's Mobile Accessibility Guidelines
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile_access.shtml>
​)​
that will be hard to align with a W3C version if we take the slow, painful
process that the US Government currently exhibits in their excruciating
crawl to catching up to the 21st century.​

We have examples of countries being quick to adopt and adapt (the UK
​ w/
BS 8878
​
), and equally we have examples of countries that drag their feet (the USA
- Section 508, which by today's standards is an actual antique).
​ We also have regulators that have​ adopted the ISO variant of WCAG 2.0
(Japan), or adapted and modified WCAG 2.0 to meet their territorial needs
(AODA,
Quebec's SGQRI 008-01)
​. By my observation, regulators are as much informed by WCAG as they
"adopt" WCAG whole-cloth - it's not a monolithic landscape in the real
world, and even today some countries still use WCAG 1.0 (
http://www.lflegal.com/2013/05/gaad-legal/). Finally, there are more than a
few *accessibility experts* who are looking at WCAG as writ today with
regard to use as a legal vehicle, and find it coming up short (
http://www.funka.com/en/about-funka/ceos-corner/why-wcag-isnt-enough/), and
even in the US, legal settlements today are reaching beyond WCAG to other
'standards' because WCAG 2.0 is starting to show its age:


"However, the (Netflix) agreement does not use WCAG 2.0 AA as the
accessibility standard for mobile applications.  Instead, the agreement
adopts the *British Broadcasting Corporation’s Mobile Accessibility
Standards and Guidelines version 1.0
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile_access.shtml>*
(“BBC
Standard”) as the accessible standard for the mobile application.

The use of the BBC Standard is unusual and departs from the Department of
Justice’s practice of using the WCAG 2.0 AA as the accessibility standard
for mobile applications."
(
http://www.adatitleiii.com/2016/04/netflix-agrees-to-add-audio-description-to-many-of-its-shows-and-dvd-rentals/
​)​


More importantly however, we have companies and organizations adopting WCAG
2.0 whether or not they are mandated to do so (Penn. State, US Dept. of
Justice), and at the W3C we have companies that are not only adopting our
current standards, they are helping to make new accessibility standards
(ARIA, a11y & SVG, Project Silver) which they will bring back to their
organizations to use (IBM, Oracle, Adobe, Apple, Google, Facebook, Pearson,
and more). We have absolutely no reason to believe they won't keep up with
WCAG 2.x, or at least start to integrate any new Success Criteria we
advance at a pace that is faster than the legislative process today, and in
fact organizations like the dPub IG at the W3C are coming to the WCAG WG
looking to ensure that Digital Publications can be made accessible, and
have articulated gaps they see and want to fix *today*, and not when
legislated to do so (https://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/).

Focusing on the USA for just a minute, the advancement and adoption of WCAG
2.0 in the private sector has not happened because of a legislated
requirement, but rather that the DOJ is simply referencing WCAG (as an
industry standard) in their *enforcement* of ADA (the spirit of that
legislation, and not the letter of the law), and while that has its
drawbacks, it is also a telling indication that needing specific
legislation to achieve our goals is neither necessary nor required: helpful
yes for clarity, but the evidence before us (going all the way back to the
Target.com case <https://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/target-case-study>) is that
it's not the legislation that matters so much, *it's the enforcement*.

>
to
*​​allow them to be more easily included* in design specifications,
purchasing agreements (procurement), regulations (government), and
contractual agreements.

Sure, but that isn't the same as "becoming the next new
​legal requirement
"
​. The plan for WCAG 2.x (2.1) is to use exactly the same framework and
'methodology' as WCAG 2.0 - in fact it is mandated to be 100% backwards
compatible - but the goal is not to re-write external legislation(s), it's
to advance new technologies and practices that benefit PwD and inform and
instruct developers on what and how to achieve that, while at the same time
"...
*​*allow them to be more easily included
​..." into existing or future legislation​ - not **ENSURE** they get added,
but rather to allow them to be more easily included...

It is for this reason that I cringe when I hear of legislative needs acting
as an drag-anchor to our efforts. We have a real need and gap in our
requirements today, and just because some actors will hem and haw, and find
every trick in the book to try and avoid doing the right thing, is not a
reason for us to slow down or wait for them to catch up: for that, I'll
leave it to the lawyers and legislators to enforce the laws they have on
their books on a territory by territory basis today:* the W3C informs, the
governments enforce. *This is the real reality today, and it is the one we
should work with, not try to change through slowing down our progress.

JF

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> JF: If the priority of constituents has changed since the publishing of
> WCAG 2.0, and the current information posted on the Intro page is now
> inaccurate, I'd like to know when that happened (Meeting minutes, CfC,
> etc.), or, conversely, do we need to review that point as part of our going
> forward?
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> The question raised in today’s meeting as I recall wasn’t ‘who is WCAG
> for’, but was not a question at all, but rather a response to you saying
> that WCAG wasn’t written for governments – to which I responded……
>
>
>
> My memory is very clear on this, and certainly much of the meeting minutes
> from early on in WCAG 2 development should confirm, and perhaps my
> colleagues from that time, that since WCAG 1 was (surprisingly to many)
> adopted by laws around the world, the WG decided for WCAG 2 to specifically
> frame the SC language to be testable and articulated so as to allow them to
> be more easily included in design specifications, purchasing agreements
> (procurement), regulations (government), and contractual agreements.
>
>
>
> If you look at WCAG 2 itself, under the *WCAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance*
> heading:
>
>
>
> ​​​​​“*Success Criteria* - For each guideline, testable success criteria
> are provided to allow WCAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and
> conformance testing are necessary such as in *design specification,
> purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements*.”
>
>
>
> Of course WCAG 2 guidance was made for developers, designers and others -
> for the benefit of the true constituents, **users with disabilities**.
> The crux though, is, that if those new SC aren’t adopted and required by
> governement in their regulations – than few users will benefit from those
> important new SC – because they won’t be implmented other than by a few
> accessibility companies, disability groups and other well-meaning
> organizations building mobile apps.
>
>
>
> Beleiveing that new SC will be taken-up by most organizations, public and
> private, without them being required to do so by law, is pretty much
> wishful thinking. As much as some would like to believe that they live in a
> society that is enlightened, above accessibility needing to be mandated by
> law, I wish them the best – I do not live in that world.
>
>
>
> In my experience, with almost all clients, as I sit across the table from
> them after an assessment or requirements meeting, what I hear from them is
> “What do I **have** to do”? The shoulds and the coulds rarely get the
> go-ahead.
>
>
>
> ** 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:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 7, 2016 5:41 PM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Is it 2 or 3 years that WCAG will be updated? - I thought
> it was approx. 3
>
>
>
> ​​+1 to Andrew.
>
>
>
> The deck I used for the internal Deque presentation today was dated
> September 30th and was first presented at Paris-Web on that day, and was
> based on thoughts & discussions that emerged from TPAC 2016 the week
> previous. Some aspects of that have changed since then, however the goal of
> getting WCAG 2.1 completed in a 2-year time frame (closer to 15-18 months),
> and that a FPWD of Silver (AG/3.0) is targeted for 3 years is now part of
> our Draft Charter out for review to the AC. *Additionally, all dates in
> the PPT deck were also clearly marked TBC*.
>
>
>
> The current Draft Charter for this Working Group now has an indicated
> release date of Q2 (June) 2018 for WCAG 2.1 (https://www.w3.org/2016/11/
> proposed-ag-charter#milestones), and personally I have a high-level
> expectation that this date will not slip FOR ANY REASON. (I suspect that
> will also be an expectation from W3C management and AC representatives.)
>
>
>
> Because of that, I also suspect that not all of the currently proposed 50+
> new Success Criteria emerging from the various task forces will make that
> date. Despite my continued reservations that this scenario is currently not
> explicitly addressed in the proposed new WG charter, I agreed (or rather
> "agreed to live with") to let the charter move forward for AC review, with
> the understanding that we may need a WCAG 2.2, likely to ship during the
> *next* charter (after the currently proposed new 3 year charter expires) to
> address current proposed SC that did not make the cut-off date for WCAG
> 2.1. Whether that would be in a 1, 2 or 3 year time-frame after the
> 2016-2019 charter period expires has been left to determine during the next
> rechartering exercise. That decision will also likely be impacted and
> informed by progress made on the Silver activity (i.e. if progress on
> Silver is moving forward rapidly, we may not need a 2.2, and instead go
> straight to 3.0/Silver).
>
>
>
>
>
> Another question that surfaced during that internal presentation today was
> "Who is WCAG for?", to which I referenced the following:
> Who WCAG is for
>
> WCAG is primarily intended for:
>
>    - Web content developers (page authors, site designers, etc.)
>    - Web authoring tool developers
>    - Web accessibility evaluation tool developers
>    - Others who want or need a standard for web accessibility
>
> Related resources are intended to meet the needs of many different people,
> including policy makers, managers, researchers, and others.
>
> WCAG is a technical standard, not an introduction to accessibility. For
> introductory material, see Where should I start? in the FAQ
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#start>.
>
> (source: https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php)
>
>
>
> While the role of governments and legislators is noted in the
> "constituents group" above (policy makers), I also wanted to note their
> secondary role, and to underscore that WCAG is *primarily *for the users
> and content creators (per our own documentation), and that we should be
> working to *their* needs over those of the regulators, including
> developing time-lines and delivery deadlines, especially with the 2.x work.
> If the priority of constituents has changed since the publishing of WCAG
> 2.0, and the current information posted on the Intro page is now
> inaccurate, I'd like to know when that happened (Meeting minutes, CfC,
> etc.), or, conversely, do we need to review that point as part of our going
> forward?
>
>
>
> <opinion>
>
> I do believe that a deeper consultation with all stakeholders is
> appropriate for the AG (aka 3.0) work, and in fact is called out explicitly
> in the Silver draft Work Statement, but I again reiterate that from my
> perspective, work on the 2.x activity should not and in fact must not be
> delayed by policy makers (etc.) not being actively involved in the 2.x work
> and slowing our progress.
>
>
>
> We need to work at the speed of the internet, not the speed of regulators,
> to get accurate, useful, and standardized Success Criteria into the hands
> of those who *want* this content *today*: I already know of at least one
> organization that is legally mandated to meet the BBC Mobile Accessibility
> Guidelines, not because they didn't want to use WCAG Guidelines, but *because
> WCAG has nothing today specific to Mobile*, and they needed something
> now, not in 5 years time. This is another problem we must also recognize:
> if we take too long to update our guidance, our Recommendation will start
> to lose credibility and relevance to the real world, in much the same way
> that Section 508 today is irrelevant to most content producers "in the
> wild": even the US Department of Justice references WCAG 2.0 over Section
> 508, and through my work I note other 508-mandated stakeholders are today
> driving toward WCAG 2.0 instead - I heard this multiple times at Educause 2
> weeks ago, with multiple publicly funded EDUs adopting WCAG 2.0 as their
> internal standard.
>
>
>
> (I'll also note in passing that this could negatively impact this Working
> Group's very existence: during the last rechartering of the Education and
> Outreach Working Group, more than one AC representative noted that they
> felt the work of EO was being duplicated elsewhere: faster, and "better",
> and why should the W3C continue to fund that activity? That hurdle was
> cleared, and EO lives still, but there is a cautionary tale there that
> should not be ignored... UAAG WG was also wrapped up for similar reasons.)
>
>
>
> Those that are going to take their time adopting our new work, and/or push
> back on each and every new SC as being difficult for regulators must not
> stop us in this goal - they can stay conformant to WCAG 2.0 from now to
> eternity (as WCAG 2.0 will never change), and instead make their
> legislative shift to 3.0 when it is ready to be published as a W3C
> Recommendation, and they are ready to adopt it - there is no obligation,
> implied or stated, that governments and legislators *MUST* keep up with all
> WCAG releases, whether major or minor.
>
> </opinion>
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> Thanks. That is what I thought!
>
>
>
> ​​​​​Happy Monday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** 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:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 7, 2016 3:26 PM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 'WCAG' <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; josh@interaccess.ie
> *Subject:* Re: Is it 2 or 3 years that WCAG will be updated? - I thought
> it was approx. 3
>
>
>
> As of right now we say in the proposed charter "The Working Group intends
> to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular interval of
> approximately three years, starting with WCAG 2.1.”
>
>
>
> We may determine that we can do it in 2 or we may determine that we need
> 4, or we may find that 2 is too soon or that 3 is too long. It is currently
> TBD, as there is not a consensus opinion on the group for 2 years at this
> point in time.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, November 7, 2016 at 15:17
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "
> josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> *Subject: *Is it 2 or 3 years that WCAG will be updated? - I thought it
> was approx. 3
>
>
>
> Andrew and Josh,
>
>
>
> I was at a presentation today put on by John Foliot, where he stated that
> we, the WCAG Working Group, will be updating WCAG 2 every two years until
> Silver comes out.
>
>
>
> Is there some background information about how often **we** plan on
> updating WCAG 2, as was stated in the charter, that I am missing?
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-SheaPrincipal 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>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Foliot
>
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>
> Deque Systems Inc.
>
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion