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

My responses below as "<< KHS: ...... >>"

AWK: Comments to Katie’s points inline:

KHS: 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.

KHS: 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."



KHS: 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.



AWK: Per the AG WG Decision policy (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
decision-policy):

“Consensus indicates that a substantial number of individuals in the group
support a proposal, and within the AG Working Group consensus can be
achieved through this process.”



AWK: Given that most of the concerns raised in the CFC responses are being
addressed (I’m interpreting adding an editor’s note, opening an issue, and
committing to reviewing and changing content in the section that was the
source of the concern as addressing the issues), I don’t think that
declaring that we have met consensus is inappropriate.


*<< KHS: We will have to disagree on what consensus is (regardless of the
'cut and paste' -- which unfortunately has become somewhat of a common
hammer in the new AG, as opposed to an occasional tool to help outsiders
who do not understand this specification). Consensus, I believe, is firmly
rooted in the WG via its long history of "can you live with it (if you
don't agree)?".  Apparently opposed to what the chairs have decided, it is
clear to me that we, as a group, did not reach consensus - and - it is not
accurate to call it that IMO. >>*





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



AWK: Glad to hear that!



KHS: Could/should the language have been better? Absolutely.



AWK: It is important to be clear on what language you are talking about
here. Are you talking about SC or other language?



*<< KHS: It is the language of the former, the SCs, the requirements >> *






AWK: If the latter, we are able to and are committed to reviewing it during
CR. If the former, with the exception of Target Size, all SC were approved
by the group in different CFC’s – it would help to understand which ones
you are thinking about.





KHS: 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.



AWK: No question. And, we have more time – 18 months more. I know that
isn’t the answer that you want, but it is the answer that we have to work
with. If we didn’t commit to an 18 month schedule then we wouldn’t have
been chartered at all. We will keep working because we believe in this.



KHS: 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.



AWK: Perhaps not the most positive spin, but I agree that we always know
more about the SC 1, 2, or even 8 years after they are published.



KHS: 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.



AWK: I am sure that we are all thinking about this on an ongoing basis, but
our primary focus is identifying what standards we can reach consensus on,
in the time we are provided.



*<< KHS:  Ultimately we, the WG, were the arbiters of how much time we
wanted to allow. Had we together made the point to the AC that one of the
most stable standards developed by the W3C in its history, that had
successfully become de-facto civil rights around the world - could be
iterated more quickly - but could not be iterated like a back-end browser
spec - because - as the actual language of each individual requirement, if
successful, might ultimately need to meet a legislative bar as well - the
membership could have handled and understood that distinction - in my
opinion. My experience with the AC is that they strike me as a set of
thoughtful and intelligent people. And currently there is a higher set of
members now who understand the regulatory environment. Unfortunately there
were very loud and forceful voices, possibly determined to make a name for
themselves personally, that worked the agile WCAG 'spin' to a T – and to
this spec and WG’s detriment, IMO. >>*





AWK: Our best way to support possible integration of WCAG into policies
that have the force of law is to make sure that the SC are identifying ways
to improve accessibility for people and ensuring that these are able to be
implemented and tested. If we add SC because we know that it will help
users but without a careful consideration of the other aspects, or without
the technology even being available yet, we run the risk of never
publishing at all or becoming a target of vigorous lobbying to policy
makers who don’t want to be held to an unachievable standard.



*<< KHS:  I completely agree. And had we not lost and alienated working
group members, or possible helpful new participants, we may have had many
more ideas on how to do just that for some of these SCs.>>*







KHS: 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?



AWK: I think that it would be productive to hear what your top few items
you have in mind that we didn’t do because of time constraints, and how
much additional time you think would be needed to address them. These are
probably good targets to start with in a WCAG 2.2.



*<< KHS:*

*1.        **Perform our due diligence via a concerted i18n review. *

*2.        **Perform our due diligence via a concerted security review. *

*3.        **Perform out due diligence on the new Guidelines. *

*4.        **Perform due diligence on placement of SC with in those
Guidelines. *

*5.        **Perform due diligence on the rest of the document beyond the
SCs, providing cohesion to the whole standard – not just bolting on SCs.*

*6.        **Provide honest language about what we thought, and advertised
(spin) about what we wanted to provide – vs. what we ended up providing –
and why!*

*7.        **Honestly acknowledge and address the COGA bigotry on the part
of a small minority, which not only hampered the work from being
successful, but is shameful for this world renowned inclusion-to-access WG
as well as the W3C organization itself.*

*8.        **Honestly acknowledge and address the bullying – and end it! *

*9.        **Pro-actively welcome back into the fold all who left or
remained silent because of the bullying and ridicule. Who knows how much
better this CR could have been with all those who left – if they had
actually been allowed/able to participate? >>*



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



AWK: When brought to the attention of the chairs we have tried to handle
these situations, and will continue to do so. If you or others feel that
group members are violating the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
there are procedures that are in place to address this. Details are at
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/.



*<< KHS: As one of the people who brought the bullying and intimidation
issues to the chairs, the only outcome I ever saw was myself apologizing to
the working group on several occasions for my poor behavior in response to
it being allowed to continue. Again, I think if we **honestly acknowledge
and address this issue, the W3C, the WG and the spec will be the better for
it. And those who were afraid to share their expertise and experience to
improve the spec will feel safe to return and help us.>>*







KHS: Why am I not proud of this outcome?

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

KHS: 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.

AWK: I feel that meeting this commitment is not a one-off solution.



*<< KHS: I understand why you say this, and had many, including those in
all three Task Forces not have felt marginalized by our process – I think
what you suggest here would have been better received by those effected.
But the combination of not keeping our commitment to COGA and allowing
bullying to rule the day – trust has been broken. I truly hope that it can
be restored. >>*





AWK: We have worked very hard on this and will continue to do so. I would
love to discuss in more detail what you mean by an “atmosphere of
intimidation and bullying took over” – we have worked to address every
concern brought to our attention and we are not aware of this as an overall
climate issue for the group. If it is, we need to know more about it.



*<< KHS: Perhaps a completely an anonymous poll might provide the insight
into what level this has affect this WG, including all TFs, can be widely
advertised.  I am thinking because of the trust issue, you didn’t hear from
as many as you could have (I on the other hand did, as I have shared).
People fear retaliation and backlash. >>*



KHS: 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.



AWK: As indicated in the response to Leonie earlier, this wasn’t an option
that was available to us.



KHS: 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.

AWK: At some point in the next couple of months we will need to be talking
about what is next, and how to get there more easily. Your thoughts and
participation will be good input into that discussion.

*<< KHS: Thank you Andrew. I would like to see the return participation of
those who have left - if they see that trust can be restored, and hope they
will return. And that others will also speak-up and share – given that same
assurance. I also hope that if the issues are honestly addressed (around
bullying and intimidation) that new folks will feel compelled to join the
WG. >>*



KHS: Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of my concerns.

AWK: Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and for all of your hard work.

Thanks,

AWK



*<< KHS: I am not saying that all didn’t work their buns off. I am not
saying that the chairs didn’t do an awesome job on so many difficult
fronts. They did. This run was particularly challenging. But the boat was
missed or ignored on the issues that divided us further. The really really
hard issue of honestly recognizing and addressing the **intimidation,
bullying and marginalizing of people that didn’t deserve it – and – that we
seriously needed to pull this off - didn’t happen.>>*

*<< KHS: All that is good that will come out of this spec we can be
thankful for – but what has been lost – well that – is heartbreaking to
me…..>>*


** 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 5:29 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Comments to Katie’s points inline:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AWK: Per the AG WG Decision policy (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
> decision-policy):
>
> “Consensus indicates that a substantial number of individuals in the group
> support a proposal, and within the AG Working Group consensus can be
> achieved through this process.”
>
>
>
> AWK: Given that most of the concerns raised in the CFC responses are being
> addressed (I’m interpreting adding an editor’s note, opening an issue, and
> committing to reviewing and changing content in the section that was the
> source of the concern as addressing the issues), I don’t think that
> declaring that we have met consensus is inappropriate.
>
>
>
> Have we done some very good things that will add to Accessibility? Yes.
>
>
>
> AWK: Glad to hear that!
>
>
>
> Could/should the language have been better? Absolutely.
>
>
>
> AWK: It is important to be clear on what language you are talking about
> here. Are you talking about SC or other language? If the latter, we are
> able to and are committed to reviewing it during CR. If the former, with
> the exception of Target Size, all SC were approved by the group in
> different CFC’s – it would help to understand which ones you are thinking
> about.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AWK: No question. And, we have more time – 18 months more. I know that
> isn’t the answer that you want, but it is the answer that we have to work
> with. If we didn’t commit to an 18 month schedule then we wouldn’t have
> been chartered at all. We will keep working because we believe in this.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AWK: Perhaps not the most positive spin, but I agree that we always know
> more about the SC 1, 2, or even 8 years after they are published.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AWK: I am sure that we are all thinking about this on an ongoing basis,
> but our primary focus is identifying what standards we can reach consensus
> on, in the time we are provided. Our best way to support possible
> integration of WCAG into policies that have the force of law is to make
> sure that the SC are identifying ways to improve accessibility for people
> and ensuring that these are able to be implemented and tested. If we add SC
> because we know that it will help users but without a careful consideration
> of the other aspects, or without the technology even being available yet,
> we run the risk of never publishing at all or becoming a target of vigorous
> lobbying to policy makers who don’t want to be held to an unachievable
> standard.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> AWK: I think that it would be productive to hear what your top few items
> you have in mind that we didn’t do because of time constraints, and how
> much additional time you think would be needed to address them. These are
> probably good targets to start with in a WCAG 2.2.
>
>
>
> I am incredibly saddened to have seen, been a victim of, and engaged in
> - just plain ugliness on par with coercion, ridicule and childishness.
>
> AWK: When brought to the attention of the chairs we have tried to handle
> these situations, and will continue to do so. If you or others feel that
> group members are violating the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
> there are procedures that are in place to address this. Details are at
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> AWK: I feel that meeting this commitment is not a one-off solution. We
> have worked very hard on this and will continue to do so. I would love to
> discuss in more detail what you mean by an “atmosphere of intimidation and
> bullying took over” – we have worked to address every concern brought to
> our attention and we are not aware of this as an overall climate issue for
> the group. If it is, we need to know more about it.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AWK: As indicated in the response to Leonie earlier, this wasn’t an option
> that was available to us.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> AWK: At some point in the next couple of months we will need to be talking
> about what is next, and how to get there more easily. Your thoughts and
> participation will be good input into that discussion.
>
> Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of my concerns.
>
> AWK: Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and for all of your hard work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
>
> 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)
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FUpdated_CR_pub%2Fresults)&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C998e9786c7764409973108d564eb766d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636525884855542304&sdata=JVxf%2B8aNVccy5dtkl%2FFWIQKU2dCWcWZapQbUxmWHuRw%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C998e9786c7764409973108d564eb766d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636525884855542304&sdata=6EIM3ZhEWyp50IbGfgNXI8MuQBcSrD4WSRkHSQBfDyk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>