Re: CFC - Transition UPDATED WCAG 2.1 Editor's Draft to Candidate Recommendation

Dear WG Participants,

For more than 17 years, I have been proud and grateful to do this work. I
recognize and have been glad to serve with all of you who have dedicated so
many hours in a good faith effort to move our shared cause forward. I know
that we all want the same thing and I hope my comments can be taken as they
are offered - as a reflection and a dialogue on how we can do better.

One thing we can improve upon is to be clear about how we refer to
outcomes. For example, with approximately 20% not agreeing to publish (and
several agreeing to publish with reservations,) this outcome should not
really be called consensus, should it?

"...  but are moving forward and recognizing that this CfC is agreed on as
a consensus opinion of the working group."



I think we all understand the politics of why this needs to be done now,
today. But we did not reach consensus and should not call it that.



Have we done some very good things that will add to Accessibility? Yes.



Could/should the language have been better? Absolutely.



Could we have addressed the user needs that the 3 task forces brought to us
better and more completely? Yes, we could have, given more time.



Has there been 'death by a thousand paper cuts' for some SCs because of
this rush to meet timelines? Only the coroner's report will determine that.



I hope this WG thinks long and hard about agile technical standards that
could become components of civil rights - and whether that language that is
'good enough' or 'all that we can agree on today' meets that bar.



I am shocked at all that we did not do because there was no time. As the
global standard relied upon for the civil rights of millions of people are
we really OK with privileging the schedule over the content?



I am incredibly saddened to have seen, been a victim of, and engaged in
- just plain ugliness on par with coercion, ridicule and childishness.


Why am I not proud of this outcome?

This WG 10 years ago committed to seriously address CCL issues in our next
release. I cannot see that we have met that commitment.

Many diligent people in this group tried to meet that commitment and made
some degree of progress. At some point, however an atmosphere of
intimidation and bullying took over and made what was already quite
difficult completely impossible. If we are to make yet another commitment
for the next iteration, that issue must be honestly acknowledged and
addressed, in my opinion.

Does it need to take another 10 years to get it right? Absolutely not. And
I said before, there are options between 18 months and 10 years. I
suggested 3 years as a reasonable "iteration"  timeline for an
international accessibility standard.



I would like to understand how we plan to address these issues and find a
path to meet our long overdue commitment to the COGA community, people with
low vision, and others who have felt marginalized in our process.

Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of my concerns.

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> AGWG’ers,
>
>
>
> As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to this CfC
> and six responses that that group members opposed the transition of the
> Editor’s Draft to CR, we would like to clarify how we are planning to
> address the concerns raised, but are moving forward and recognizing that
> this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working
> group. Specifically, the Working Group agrees with the first option
> presented in the CFC survey.
>
>
>
> The CFC was conducted using a survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/
> wbs/35422/Updated_CR_pub/results) and the objections all centered either
> around WCAG 2.1 needing to do more for users with cognitive disabilities
> (two comments) or needing to make a new change to editorial text in the
> WCAG 2.1 abstract (four comments).
>
>
>
> Regarding the text in question in the Abstract:
>
>    1. We are adding an Editor’s note to the abstract section that reads:
>
>
>
> The introduction to WCAG 2.0 says "even content that conforms at the
> highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types,
> degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive,
> language, and learning areas." While WCAG 2.1 provides additional guidance,
> it is still true that it does not provide universal coverage. The Working
> Group plans to add additional clarification about this in the next
> publication.
>
>
>
>    1. We will also create an issue in Github that references this
>    Editor’s note to help the group and editors keep this on the radar to
>    address soon.
>
>
>
> We do feel that it is important that the Working Group works together to
> reach consensus on this language rather than adding it just before CR.
>
>
>
>    1. In the WCAG 2.0 publication sections such as “layers of guidance”
>    were included. These are currently linked from the WCAG 2.1 draft, but we
>    expect that we will add these into the WCAG 2.1 during CR. The Layers of
>    Guidance section is where this language is included:
>
>
>
> “Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not
> be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of
> disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas.
> Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including
> the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current
> best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible,
> to this community.”
>
>
>
>                 This language is clearly important to include, and to
> ensure that the abstract is harmonized with this language.
>
>
>
>    1. One of the comments raised concerns about Internationalization. The
>    Group received comments related to internationalization during the last
>    Working Draft and addressed these to the satisfaction of the commenters,
>    but we will continue to pursue wide review of the CR publication, including
>    from a broad set of languages.
>
>
>
> We hope that this course of action will address people’s concerns.
>
>
>
> This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Thanks again to all for their hard work!
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 13:25
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *CFC - Transition UPDATED WCAG 2.1 Editor's Draft to Candidate
> Recommendation
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 13:24
>
>
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday January 25th at 1:20pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> Please respond to this CFC through this survey:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Updated_CR_pub/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FUpdated_CR_pub%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfaafb0995c1f4dea9bac08d5628ea714%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636523287183498126&sdata=XaM7EUi25dJvzKJ7cIe4TxAqLz6lQM4N1DlIrGjRcYE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 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 in the
> survey before the CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>