Re: Change in process?

Hi Léonie,

At the current time, I am unaware of any CfC's going out from this Working
Group, and I've been following along a lot more closely.

Right now, there is a huge scramble to get newly Proposed Success Criteria
into the FPWD, with (by my observations) some members acting under the
impression that if a proposed SC doesn't make this first cut that it will
be left "on the cutting room floor" (despite this not being the case). This
is leading to some very rushed and somewhat incomplete proposals advancing
(Pull Requests) and then meeting resistance from non-subject-domain
experts, but seasoned W3C/WCAG folks who have a clearer understanding of
the W3C process and politic, but with a lesser understanding of some of the
nuanced needs of the user-group/SC being brought forward (of which I count
myself a member of the latter).

<With my Deque hat off>

Veiled (or sometimes not so subtle) hostility towards commentors who are
pushing back is not helpful either: this past week's survey ( had us reviewing
6 new SC, and I know for a fact that along with myself at least 2 other
people spent in-excess of 90 minutes reviewing those proposals for the
weekly call. Yet on the mailing list accusations were made that nobody is
reading the research around these SC, and that some are just pushing back
"because they don't want to include everyone [sic]".

I find that frankly very discouraging, because everyone who shows up to
WCAG calls and provides feedback on this list are dedicated accessibility
professionals who have demonstrated through their personal histories and
actions how much they care about accessibility. If some members of the
Working Group are finding the resistance to some of these SC difficult now,
I fear what will happen when they are published for wider review by
non-accessibility experts later this year.

With regard to my review and commenting, I am adopting the following
strategy: I am reviewing the weekly Success Criteria Survey and responding
that way each week. Upon publication of the FPWD (which I referred to on
this weeks call as a "stability point") I intend to solicit feedback from a
group of Deque Subject Matter Experts, and on behalf of Deque we will
submit our formal response to the FPWD that way. My goal is to ensure that
the feedback is both well vetted internally, and that it represents not
*my* opinion, but that of the collected group of experts I am privileged to
work with every day at Deque.



On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Léonie Watson <> wrote:

> I tend to agree that the process is confusing at the moment. It's
> difficult to know what to review, where to comment or when to respond to a
> survey.
> When a decision is taken on a call or at a meeting, it's supposed to be
> sent out to the entire WG as a Call For Consensus (CFC). Only if the CFC
> passes is the decision confirmed and enacted upon.
> This may be happening, but if so I must admit I've missed it somewhere in
> all the emails and Github comments.
> Léonie
> --
> @LeonieWatson Carpe diem
> On 09/02/2017 13:46, lisa.seeman wrote:
>> this process is not really working. There is a huge curve for people to
>> either understand the wcag constraints or to understand the new
>> disabilities and how they use the web. Our methodology relies on
>> extensive  research and it gets lost in the disjointed github comment.
>> After 2.1 first draft is out I suggest we have a dedicated call on each
>> SC or use need where we focus on understand the issues, talk though the
>> use cases and then move on to solving issues with the wording. I don't
>> think they need to be on the main WCAG call, but people should sign up
>> on which SC they are interested in joining that subcall. After the call
>> the new wording can go to a discussion on the list and then a call for
>> consensus , but people should vote if they were on the call, involved in
>> drafting the SC or at least read all the relevant minutes
>> All the best
>> Lisa Seeman
>> LinkedIn <>, Twitter
>> <>

John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:47:19 UTC