Re: Abstract update - new content terms

Continuing the thread with regard to abstract language that would appear 
in the final Recommendation version of WCAG 2.1:

* Alastair's suggestion to remove "new and updated" from in front of 
"content" seems consistent with the intent of W3C issuing an updated WCAG.

* With regard to potential uptake in policies, and concerns expressed by 
Kim and Brooks, once W3C has issued an updated Recommendation, we 
generally do encourage people to use it. W3C has often been encouraged 
by its Membership to strongly promote standards harmonization in the 
area of accessibility guidance, to provide a more feasible environment 
for implementation and conformance for businesses and other 
organizations. AG WG has gone to great lengths to ensure backwards 
compatibility of WCAG 2.1 with WCAG 2.0, among other things in order to 
help provide a path by which to evolve the technical guidance on 
accessibility without disrupting what businesses and other organizations 
might need to comply with. With any new guidelines, there's always the 
risk of a cascading series of derivative versions that might make it 
hard for organizations to implement and comply to, and we are likely to 
need to spend time and effort promoting awareness of improvements in 
WCAG 2.1 and encouraging people to use it. I see having this sentence as 
supportive of that goal. Looking at the wording itself, perhaps other 
options could be modify the phrasing from "advise" to "advise 
considering" -- though I think that sounds more hand-wavy; or back to a 
suggestion from the previous call, "encouraging." But I wanted to 
observe that a statement advising uptake of WCAG 2.1 for new and updated 
policies would, IMO, be consistent with the limited kinds of comments we 
make about policy uptake -- especially if coupled with the 
non-deprecation/non-supersession clarification about WCAG 2.0 that AG WG 
added on Tuesday.

- Judy

On 5/24/2018 9:24 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Alastair and all,
>
> Your latest text is:
>
> "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0.
> While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, the W3C advises the use
> of WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of  accessibility
> efforts. The W3C also advises that new or updated Web accessibility
> policies reference WCAG 2.1."
>
> I could live with that but suggest removing the word "future" as 2.1
> will "maximize the applicability of accessibility efforts" for current
> and legacy content too.
>
> In addition, the second sentence is difficult to read. I suggest
> simplifying "maximize applicability of accessibility efforts". Perhaps
> something such as the following would work?
>
> "The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0.
> While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, W3C advises the use of
> WCAG 2.1 to improve accessibility. The W3C also advises that new or
> updated Web accessibility policies reference WCAG 2.1."
>
> I strongly disagree with removing the last sentence. We are "advising"
> not "mandating". As you said, the new standard should move people
> forward to improve accessibility. The current sentence states it
> clearly.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018, 5:42 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kim, Brooks,
>> I think the intent is to say something like: If you are going to refer to
>> *a* WCAG in a *new* policy, then please use the latest one.
>> It could not determine an accessibility policy, which is a much wider
>> question. However, if a policy uses a ‘measuring stick’ (thus the term
>> “reference”), then use the most recent one.
>> It would seem odd to me if the standard does not in some way nudge people
>> to use the latest one.
>> Is there another way we could say that?
>> Kind regards,
>> -Alastair
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2018 15:22:01 UTC