- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:24:10 -0400
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <400072b4-0d1a-addc-345d-5854fd390878@w3.org>
On 10/07/2018 12:57 PM, Jonathan Avila wrote: > > * and the value of the investment clear > > I’ve personally always found this statement frustrating as while there > is cost from W3C to pay for the part of time of a resource, webEx, > etc. the bulk of the cost in time and money is born by the people on > the working group and the organizations that pay their salaries to > commit time to work on this and to pay for travel to attend TPAC and > other conferences. > This is the reason the AC cares about the investment. The AC represent the Members, who are the ones mostly footing the bill for staff time and travel to participate in the work. Costs managed by W3C directly also mostly come from Membership fees, which is why Member organizations care that the money is being used in a manner they support. Michael > > Jonathan > > *From:*Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:57 AM > *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: What to work on next > > I want to reinforce Andrew's point. We don't necessarily have the > ability to recharter ourselves to do things exactly as we would hope > to do. Charters are granted by the Advisory Committee, not simply > decided by the Working Group. The Advisory Committee is likely to look > closely at a proposed charter and not support it if the deliverables > aren't well-defined, the timeline unacceptable to them, and the value > of the investment clear. Our last charter round was difficult even > when we thought we were addressing those topics, and trends with other > group charters since then suggest we would have even more difficulty > with an upcoming charter without even more specificity. > > While people in this group have been putting a lot of thought into > Silver, those thoughts haven't yet come into a form that would > convince outsiders that it is a viable approach - they will need to > see an actual draft of Silver with both structure and content. A first > draft is projected for the end of this year, and it may take some > review and adjustment before it's mature enough to be convincing to > the Advisory Committee that it's a viable deliverable. We're also > expecting it to take a few more years to develop new guidance that > takes advantage of the structure of Silver, meaning the timeline to > completion is longer than is generally supported these days. We have > good reasons for the timeline to be longer, but from the perspective > of many in the Advisory Committee, this just means the project is > still in incubation stage and not yet ready to be included in a charter. > > Meanwhile, many people in this group have said new guidance is needed > in a shorter timeline than we think we can deliver for Silver. I think > some people in the Advisory Committee agree with that. A charter that > describes Silver in a well-defined way, but projects a timeline of > several years yet with no interim work, may raise concerns from people > with this view. If we attempt to address this by rushing Silver, we > will lose the benefits we hope to gain by a thoughtful restructuring. > A charter that provides for updated accessibility guidance on a > shortish timeline is more likely to keep us in charter and enable us > to meet shorter-term needs that have been expressed to us. > > Concerns have been expressed in this thread, and at other times, about > the impact of a strict timeline on our work mode and quality. It is > certainly true that following a timeline strictly requires painful > decisions at times, but I do not think we will be able to avoid this. > The Advisory Committee is putting increasing emphasis on this, I > believe in part because it is required to keep W3C relevant in today's > environment where technologies evolve faster and other organizations > turn around deliverables faster. Of course we want to minimize the > amount of pain and compromise this causes us, and I expect we will > learn from the 2.1 process to do better in future work. But I don't > think we can avoid a situation where timeline is a major factor in > work planning, and a charter that seeks to do so would probably not be > accepted. We can of course try to be realistic and reasonable in our > timeline planning, but I don't think we can deprioritize it in our > next charter. > > Michael > > On 10/07/2018 9:40 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > > With the challenges we have had with charters, I’m not confident > that we can give ourselves a loose charter. Increasingly the focus > of comments is to demand a well-incubated standard when > chartering. We don’t necessarily need to meet that expectation > completely to get a charter approved, but we do need to have the > clarity around whether the spec is a small/medium/large. > > Thanks, > > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > > Head of Accessibility > > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > > http://twitter.com/awkawk > > *From: *David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> > <mailto:david@can-adapt.com> > *Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 17:56 > *To: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Newton, Brooks (Legal)" > <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com> > <mailto:Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>, Mike Elledge > <melledge@yahoo.com> <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>, WCAG > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "White, Jason J" > <jjwhite@ets.org> <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org> > *Subject: *Re: What to work on next > > What if in the charter we give ourselves permission to go big, but > permission for that next big thing to roll out incrementally, or > even for the next iteration to be small if we haven't yet solved > all the big issues? > > In other words, we charter to investigate and pursue the big ideas > in Silver, see which if any are attainable in the desired 18 month > (or whatever) window, then bite off the right size chunk. It > might be a very small chunk or it might be a revolutionary > shift... but we'll make the right choice based on what is best for > the worldwide accessibility ecosystem in the time frame ordered > upon us by the powers that be. > > We give ourselves permission in the charter to make it as small or > as big as makes sense, once we get deep into it. We won't know > that beforehand. > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > Mobile: 613.806.9005 > > LinkedIn > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671361016&sdata=%2F4IDPQICtH9GWxce5MM6eozyhbzOIwVHXixKY9l41HI%3D&reserved=0> > > twitter.com/davidmacd > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671361016&sdata=O7GC5hY5S599ILr%2Feev68FmM2Dw%2F28hf4hdWAAFtMAY%3D&reserved=0> > > GitHub > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671371025&sdata=5JskZl8q2cNWdmHQCqdTX9VLGwWD5epHDwbzhNAfzJA%3D&reserved=0> > > www.Can-Adapt.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671381035&sdata=modH5kzXg0jL3sLDU2csLSWIJJjQzfZBLWxJKg1AG%2FI%3D&reserved=0> > > > / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > / Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671381035&sdata=phiGuzrXCC6CcTOdmcd308SmFkMlVy3Sm5V5zDO3ZJ0%3D&reserved=0> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea > <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote: > > A "clear enough vision for Silver" hopefully will be built > around 'quality' and 'completeness' of the specification, and > a true consensus around publication - over some arbitrary > browser spec-like driven timeline. A charter can (and should) > prioritize how it chooses - and push-back/negotiate on harmful > constraints. > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 6:54 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick > <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote: > > I think that we all would prefer to be focusing our > energies on the next big thing, but this gets us into the > practical realities of doing so. > > My key questions: > > What if we knew that silver would take 18 months to > publish? 4 years to publish? > > Do we have a clear enough vision for Silver that we would > be able to successfully recharter? > > This is why we need to talk about the Silver requirements > now, so we can figure out enough about the overall project > to make good guesses about how it will take shape. > > Thanks, > > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > > Head of Accessibility > > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto: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%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671391039&sdata=lOsya2W8ZrcT9yeTIQJT1mBwIg%2FdKri1GkdIhk5MXbI%3D&reserved=0> > > *From: *"Newton, Brooks (Legal)" > <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com > <mailto:Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>> > *Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 13:34 > *To: *Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com > <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>, David MacDonald > <david@can-adapt.com <mailto:david@can-adapt.com>>, WCAG > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, "White, > Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> > *Subject: *RE: RE: What to work on next > *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> > *Resent-Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 13:34 > > I’m onboard with moving to Silver next. We need all of > our talent and experience focused on developing a single > standard. > > Brooks > > *From:* Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com > <mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2018 3:26 PM > *To:* David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com > <mailto:david@can-adapt.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; White, Jason J > <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> > *Subject:* Re: RE: What to work on next > > This makes sense to me also. > > On Monday, July 9, 2018, 4:24:35 PM EDT, White, Jason J > <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote: > > I support David’s analysis here. It seems to me that the > difficulties encountered in extending WCAG 2.x are largely > attributable to problems with its design and assumptions, > which only Silver offers the opportunity to revisit. > > I also agree with David that extending WCAG 2.x further > would offer diminishing returns relative to the work > required to do so, and that focusing on Silver would be a > more productive effort. In addition, a possible WCAG 2.2 > would have a very limited life-time, as it would probably > be superseded by Silver within a few years – assuming that > the schedule of the latter remains reasonable. I’m > allowing for some slippage in that regard, but even so, I > think the point still holds. > > *From:*David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com > <mailto:david@can-adapt.com>> > *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2018 3:00 PM > *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> > *Subject:* What to work on next > > As I know I don't think we've made a decision about what > were working on next. It could be 2.2 or it could be silver. > > My thinking at this point is that it might be best to go > directly to Silver. Here's my reasoning: > > * Currently in the 2.1 and 2.2 series we are basically > locked into backwards compatibility constraints. The > trouble we had getting new requirements into 2.1 will > be repeated in 2.2. There are not a lot of issues that > we tabled for 2.2 that we can successfully address any > better than we could in 2.1. Perhaps we could do some > more work on target size and a couple of things like > that but it doesn't sound like we can do much more > Until new assistive technologies come out or new > specifications for instance for COGA. > * Currently silver is under development and many of us > could contribute to that effort if we weren't working > on another interim version of WCAG. I think it would > be better if we consolidate our efforts and work on > the same next big problem which is fleshing out the > plausibility of "measurability" versus " > testability" and seeing if this is a viable way > forward for the standard. > * I'd be more comfortable if we were all working > together on the problem rather than in tandem where > most of us can't give it more than a passing glance to > what's going on with silver because we have our heads > down on the current version. > > I'm interested in other people's opinions. > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > *CanAdapt**Solutions Inc.* > > Mobile: 613.806.9005 > > LinkedIn > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fin-252Fdavidmacdonald100-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636667596975927717-26sdata-3D8MZMv89FujzHZN-252BpXJiOTovcgRUdIwt3zkang4PifxM-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DHnNTgD-p430pm25aRsst9mbWQMPJynIL77TjQJAwnJ8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874447112&sdata=rKFEj%2BALH4KlsfHUwCMi4qfN7f1aE7L%2FWZ8wQoImHyY%3D&reserved=0> > > twitter.com/davidmacd > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fdavidmacd-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636667596975937726-26sdata-3DDBTBM4PXxSLy3mOnLBSiXRrEN5mw7BHJ9e8IOqCXaxc-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DpO4amrQi-UwzSpPozxfS6pgfb90LfjTWTtADZr0NLUc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874447112&sdata=sLh952wOkxgaN1FzkoiOe%2FN1iDQqlK6mbVpsTOQ86k8%3D&reserved=0> > > GitHub > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fgithub.com-252FDavidMacDonald-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975947734-26sdata-3D7yBrQpTFhdi-252FvtjQe4Aqp-252BWZJMPbgbkPEpWZz7QTa8g-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3D1yqFV4WsUKVWZjrZ_0sgDhNqxmS4k7sq1Re6kkCp4Dg%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874457116&sdata=KdYuwESOJXa%2F5%2FQwb5UflLrZeBB6NlEoocRdgcrJ%2FOk%3D&reserved=0> > > www.Can-Adapt.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.can-2Dadapt.com-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975957747-26sdata-3DluBayfw1XEjzSP0gSlyY44eWeh9UlvUPUYg0yXEV3aE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DPLdq6pr5e6ds1JhjMVPjgmQphgH3Sm8vE_6GU8dLkj0%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874457116&sdata=O85KAnEF9Y2N249ACuNr8%2B6zP8RDzcjyXTvcPV%2BVzgQ%3D&reserved=0> > > > /Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > /Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our > privacy policy > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.davidmacd.com-252Fdisclaimer.html-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975957747-26sdata-3DSMY2GxauYWDsRRJohdbHQZzSZY88dW5lufU2qZteSuE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DflAO0Gpg1TGBTja_GSuTcsH5XWafhXjUQmdsN1MfSuw%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874467121&sdata=CkNPhMYwwVAP6D1unaRbD2ElRgG7vlv76BMVoMDxvGI%3D&reserved=0> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain > privileged or confidential information. It is solely for > use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if > addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in > error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, > distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents > of this information; and delete it from your system. Any > other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > Thank you for your compliance. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:24:19 UTC