W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2019

RE: CFC - Focus for Working Group

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:41:16 +0000
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB3139C7A30A9DFDC78294BE9CF17F0@BN6PR03MB3139.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
+0.  I also agree with Wilco that I see Silver having layers and WCAG 2.x and it’s associated documents should remain a large aspect or foundation of one of those Silver layers.  Any work we do on the WCAG 2.x line should not be thrown out.  So if the intention is to not reuse the work we have done then we should start on Silver ASAP.  If WCAG 2.x will be a valuable part of  the ingredients in Silver then we should continue to work on WCAG 2.2 and Silver together at some ratio.


Jonathan Avila, CPWA
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website<http://www.levelaccess.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/LevelAccessA11y> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LevelAccessA11y/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/level-access> | Blog<http://www.levelaccess.com/blog/>

[Join us at CSUN March 13-15th! Booth 1013. Platinum Ballroom 8]<https://www.levelaccess.com/join-level-access-csun-2019/>

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:25 AM
To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Focus for Working Group

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


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. If all of the thousands of hours that have gone into WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 are going to be binned, and Silver is written entirely from scratch, if all the decisions made for WCAG 2 have to be renegotiated, then Silver will take a very long time, and is at serious risk of never finishing at all.

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. Project like that always take too long, and more often than not end up failing because they are over engineered, and not scoped properly. I'm concerned this will also happen to Silver.

I don't think we should treat Silver and WCAG 2.2 as separate projects. I think a better idea would be to come up with a transition plan. Modernise for WCAG 2.2, in such a way that that work can be used as part of Silver. That way the many of the benefits Silver can bring will be available sooner, and the effort put into WCAG 2.2 criteria doesn't detract from work in Silver (since it will be reused).

Just my 2p


On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:18 AM Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com<mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>> wrote:

I agree with Shawn.  We need a more robust project plan to start
including that much attention from AGWG.  I don't think we should
publicly commit to a time division without discussing it with the Silver
Task Force and Community Group.  This was a surprise to us, and it
should not have been.


On 2/21/2019 4:49 PM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> -1
> On 19/02/2019 20:32, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>> Call For Consensus — ends Friday February 22nd at 3:30pm Boston time.
>> The Working Group has discussed how to focus the efforts of the group
>> over the next 12-24 months and the proposal is that the WG can
>> address the short-term need for improvements to Techniques and
>> Understanding and begin to ramp-up work within the Working Group on
>> Silver as well as commit to a WCAG 2.2, which will avoid the
>> possibility of a large gap in time between the June 2018 WCAG 2.1 and
>> Silver reaching Rec.
>> *Proposed Schedule*
>> March 2019-April 2019: 45% Techniques and Understanding, 45% Silver,
>> 10% WCAG 2.2 (most drafting of new SC in ad hoc groups or TFs)
>> May 2019-forward: 45% WCAG 2.2, 45% Silver, 10% Techniques and
>> Understanding maintenance
>> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22_yesno/results

>> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2019/02/19-ag-minutes.html#item11

>> 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 before the CfC deadline.
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Head of Accessibility
>> Adobe
>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> <mailto: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%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0>

Wilco Fiers
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG

(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 13:41:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:29 UTC