RE: CFC - Advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation

0 (Abstain) from me, as well.

There’s tremendous benefit in what’s part of the WCAG 2.1 CR, for sure.  Many of the obvious gaps in the previous version of the guidelines have been filled.  Hooray!

To be honest, I also share many of the same concerns that Kim has raised.

In particular, I don’t think we’ve met the requirement in the WCAG 2.1 CR Exit Criteria that calls for accessibility support documentation to be provided with evidence of successful implementation for each SC added to WCAG 2.1.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_CR_Exit_Criteria


Personally, I think this means that we need to affirmatively document how users get real value out of pages/sites that comply with each the new SCs.  I’ve taken this position all along in meetings and in emails to the list (for example, my email to the list dated October 13, 2017<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0146.html>).


Brooks

From: kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com [mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:49 AM
To: akirkpat@adobe.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: CFC - Advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation

0 (Abstain)

After a lot of consideration, I don’t feel I can give either a +1 or -1.

On the positive side, there are a number of SCs that are extremely important and need to move forward, and my concerns below should not be construed as a desire to block us from moving those forward. In addition, a lot of effort by many people has been put into getting us this far, and I acknowledge and appreciate the massive time and effort by the group.

However, as I have said in meetings, I have some concerns which are largely unresolved and I want to note these again now. (Please note: “site” can be construed to include software, websites and mobile apps.)

  *   First, there are a few SCs that I feel should be issued as “best practice” guidelines. The constraints of working within the 2.0 format caused some uncomfortable contortions, and excluded many valid and valuable recommendations from all task forces.
  *   Second, I am uncomfortable that so few people attended the meetings and that things moved forward with a minority of voices being heard. Obviously this is a risk with voluntary attendance. However, I wonder if this could also be seen as lack of support?
  *   Finally, a few of the SCs seem more theoretical than realistic to implement.
     *   There were fewer voices representing the viewpoint of authors/implementers, for whom there may be massive expense and unforeseen problems in implementing some of the SCs. The guidelines would benefit from increased participation by content authors so more viewpoints can be taken into account.
     *   This is compounded when you consider that some countries may adopt the 2.1 guidelines as formal policies or even laws.
     *   Internationalization/globalization was under considered.
     *   I am uncomfortable with a few aspects of the process, especially confusion over whether we had to demonstrate a clear and immediate benefits to users.

Kim

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:38 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC - Advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation
Importance: High

Call for Consensus - ends Tuesday April 17 at 1:30 pm Boston time

This is a Call for Consensus to advance WCAG 2.1 to Proposed Recommendation. A few tasks related to the transition are not quite complete but we expect them to be by the time the CfC closes, and to stay on timeline we are running the CfC in parallel. These along with key review points are described below.

The Editors' Draft which includes the content proposed to be published as a Proposed Recommendation is available at: https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fw3c.github.io-252Fwcag21-252Fguidelines-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Ce156f78bc15a4db1f02d08d5a0953d14-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636591485197275475-26sdata-3DGcaBt4EVRDazIDUV0oTF-252BpOBSnNLAaSEmp2chaEDtlA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=TNPSf5_s1C7GQN2fKXOGh6t05xN18F4fA5Kt3Nyy0IU&m=M8owUkcYc7sPxQ3XPcWuD2BEXGDTcnVmViIFZjIH_gY&s=sycw7wMeGrG1wwpe3NSuv5SmKrwPvtJD5USB37uSywU&e=>

Active responses to this CfC are helpful, particularly from implementers. Please reply with "+1" to support or "-1" along with an explanation to oppose. If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

The Working Group agreed on the teleconference on 4/12/18 to conduct a CFC to advance to PR, as indicated in the minutes: https://www.w3.org/2018/04/12-ag-minutes.html


Tasks still to be completed before the CfC closes:

  *   Document 8 AA and 2 AAA implementations in the implementation report https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FWAI-252FWCAG21-252Fimplementation-2Dreport-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Ce156f78bc15a4db1f02d08d5a0953d14-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636591485197275475-26sdata-3D-252B7i-252FPdHEqyFzsUZqSI1qRi41GtoX3TBoEB4Guq7lyEM-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=TNPSf5_s1C7GQN2fKXOGh6t05xN18F4fA5Kt3Nyy0IU&m=M8owUkcYc7sPxQ3XPcWuD2BEXGDTcnVmViIFZjIH_gY&s=mVHQ_z68TlEWuGPsQNAYetKze4krZFclJ2FK1zJOWfQ&e=> (3 more AA needed at time the CfC was sent, but these are in progress)
  *   Address and close all public comments filed on the CR https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Public+Comment%22+label%3A%22CR+Comment%22<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fgithub.com-252Fw3c-252Fwcag21-252Fissues-253Fq-253Dis-25253Aopen-252Bis-25253Aissue-252Blabel-25253A-252522Public-252BComment-252522-252Blabel-25253A-252522CR-252BComment-252522-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Ce156f78bc15a4db1f02d08d5a0953d14-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636591485197275475-26sdata-3DbY-252BwMIsQSys4jRJA-252B98vqhaTjn6WdVXAcFs9LeGQ-252BPE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=TNPSf5_s1C7GQN2fKXOGh6t05xN18F4fA5Kt3Nyy0IU&m=M8owUkcYc7sPxQ3XPcWuD2BEXGDTcnVmViIFZjIH_gY&s=Q2Ue20mEaYNsPNVo11jt-P4vI98QV7eRBHMaWxlGPwg&e=>
  *   Approve changes to the introduction in CfC sent after the meeting on Thursday 4/12/18.

Key review points:

  *   Some guidelines and success criteria have been moved or renamed, in what we believe is an editorial manner which does not impact implementation.
  *   The Introduction is rewritten to apply to the final standard and includes more information about the limitations of WCAG 2.1 and refers to additional resources.
  *   No features at risk have been removed.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=hRtVFBZErk8Xl0q_P6yBN5v4rC7_6sGbaiPNuKnvsh8&s=sV-CReBRAd8u-cvro5dEKnZ51Zb9p1saZHBL3fObn3Q&e=>