RE: Abstract update - new content terms

I think I could live with the last sentence if we added some language that injects balancing. But then, to use Judy's "hand-wavy" measuring stick, I'm not sure it's even helpful. 

For example:

The W3C also advises that new or updated Web accessibility policies reference WCAG 2.1 <<++where it does not cause undue burden++>>.
  or
The W3C also advises that new or updated Web accessibility policies reference WCAG 2.1 <<++to the maximum extent practicable++>>.

I think we're best to leave it off. 

Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Brewer [mailto:jbrewer@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:22 AM
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Newton, Brooks (Legal) <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>; Dirks, Kim (Legal) <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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 15:49:55 UTC