Re: Low Vision and COGA should Drop Support for WCAG 2.1 if the AG WG is not willing make real change.

On 07/04/2017 03:59, Jonathan Avila wrote:
> I’ll throw in my two cents – what has been most frustrating for me has
> been that we have been working on these criteria for over 3 years in the
> case of the mobile task force and we solicited help from all W3C members
> and welcomed invited experts to the table.  Unfortunately some of the
> larger companies that now are raising concerns did not jump in before
> now even though we requested and welcomed their assistance.  These
> companies have the ability to dedicate resources to this task and we
> could be further along now and have less at risk success criteria had
> some of these organizations with concerns come to the table sooner.  At
> each stage over the last three years as new people have come into the
> TFs and lists we have to repeat and reiterate the same concerns and
> arguments over several times and go back and forth over wording
> sometimes reverting back to what we had before.  Releasing the WCAG 2.1
> FPWD certainly received more high level attention than original mobile
> TF note in my opinion and finally brought out the stakeholders that we
> needed access to and dialog with all along.

Part of me thinks this is inherent with the way (or perhaps the 
perception of the way) W3C/WAI works, with task forces, membership to 
working groups, invited experts etc, rather than working completely in 
the open / open to all (while of course there's no hard door slam for 
non-members, it's still the impression that the average developer may 
have...and it's exemplified by having a First *Public* Working Draft, 
which suggests any previous work was no "public").

Patrick H. Lauke | |
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 7 April 2017 07:29:42 UTC