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

It would be interesting to see where possibilities for change lie from within the W3C.
Personally I don't think more time is the key here, three years is way too long.

In the agile way of thinking you could change the model to allow for adaptation / iteration of SCs and release even more frequent than once in a year and a half. The biggest problem as I've experienced it is too much of a big chunk in too little time with too less people having focus on main issues (until it is too late).

You can also see it in another direction and narrowing it down to a max of two SCs per task force at a time where quality and focus is key so everyone can contribute to all new work and keep the overview for all what's happening. Releasing every 6/9 months and allow for bug fixing / iterations after release. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [] 
Sent: vrijdag 26 januari 2018 20:38
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <>
Cc: WCAG <>
Subject: Re: CFC - Transition UPDATED WCAG 2.1 Editor's Draft to Candidate Recommendation

Thanks Katie. This was a thoughtful assessment of a prickly topic. A couple of thoughts inline...

On 26/01/2018 18:34, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
> 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 think the goal is to be able to move in a timely fashion, and have the right content. I don't think we got it right with 2.1.

We tried to move from a 10 year cycle to an 18 month cycle, but we didn't define a clear path beyond 2.1 (setting aside Silver for the moment).

For a regular release cycle to work, people have to have confidence that the next version will happen. That way if something needs a little more time to reach maturity, it can do so, because the next version will soon be there.

So we took the first step towards a regular release cycle, but didn't follow it through properly. This meant many people were stuck in the mindset that if something didn't make it into 2.1, it wouldn't make it at all.


> 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.

On reflection, I think three years might have been a better target for 2.1. It may well have been an easier transition for some people to make.

That said, had we not adopted this timeline, the EU would have legislated without any of the 2.1 SC at all.


@LeonieWatson Carpe diem

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 Friday, 26 January 2018 20:48:06 UTC