Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

Wilco Fiers wrote:

> I disagree with the premise all together, that WCAG 2.2 and Silver are wholly separate ventures, that need to have time split between them…



Whilst I don’t think the 2.x content should be binned, in order for Silver to be different it will need to have different content. More below.



NB: I’m discussing this from the principals involved, I haven’t discussed this with the Silver TF folks.





> I look at it from a software architecture perspective. If you want to rebuild a system, you don't just bin the whole thing and start from scratch.



There are times when that’s the right thing to do [1], but I think a better lens is Information Architecture. When an information resource such as WCAG is put together there is a structure, and changing that structure means you have to change the content.

(Software architecture has somewhat different attributes.)



That is something we warn clients about before a CMS migration or re-design project. You can’t just change the navigation structure and plonk the same content in a different place, it doesn’t make sense when you then use it. E.g. The techniques assume they are referencing certain SC. If the structure of SC changes, the techniques will need updating. If the assumptions about technology change, the SCs and understanding docs change, and the techniques! It cascades.



Bottom line: I don’t think Silver can meet its requirements without changing things, and that will require a migration of content.





> I think a better idea would be to come up with a transition plan.



That is not mutually exclusive, we should be able to map between 2.x and silver, and create a content migration plan. Work on 2.2 should be able to migrate to silver, so it is not wasted.



Having said that, in the current timeline I suspect that migration is underestimated, mostly because content migration is always underestimated, by everyone.



In the meantime, we will have a (hopefully) refined and efficient process for 2.2, whilst spending some time on the requirements / structure / conformance /other discussions for Silver.



Ironically a -1 to the CFC is saying we shouldn’t do a 2.2. I think we’ll have to refine the question.



-Alastair



1] https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3856-the-big-rewrite-revisited