RE: Abstract update - new content terms

I'm also in favor of keeping the last sentence, it's a strong addition and may just be the push towards adding 2.1 which is what we strive for.

-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: donderdag 24 mei 2018 15:25
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Newton, Brooks (Legal) <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>; Dirks, Kim (Legal) <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>; WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Abstract update - new content terms

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


-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 11:40:59 UTC