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

Re: 2.2 / Silver separation

From: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:44:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC=s1AgeynNg=BGGS-rjQcU4h1SGGiJATGKxaMN-eUcjPUFvew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello,

I, for one, am not clear what we're voting on anymore. +1 or -1. All I know
from my standpoint is that the world needs improvements to WCAG 2.x while
Silver slowly builds itself up. The more I teach WCAG 2.1 to people, the
more I see them opening their minds about what they can imagine could also
become part of WCAG 2.x. That wasn't the case before. People were looking
at WCAG 2.0 as these immutable rules that had to follow. With WCAG 2.1,
some are strarting to understand that they cold maybe influence the
outcome. There's momentum there.

People are barely starting to consider the possibility that there could be
additions to WCAG. That maybe even their ideas could be considered - if
they have the stamina to go through that process. Stopping at WCAG 2.1
while the W3C retreats to its ivory tower to create Silver (a very elite
task if you ask me), is not what the world needs. That work on Silver is
supremely important, but the W3C has an opportunity to keep in touch with
the web industry with more frequent updates through WCAG 2.x, and I think
we really keep that in mind.

I think the world actually needs a WCAG 2.2. It will likely take years to
come up with a stable version of Sliver, and I wouldn't be surprised if it
actually took a lot more years than we envision. By wanting to make it more
about the user experience - which I wholeheartedly applaud - we are also
making it much more difficult to test in a quantitative, empirical and
measurable way.  Nailing that piece alone I'm sure will take a long time.
In the meantime, the web keeps involving, and so should WCAG 2.x.

This WG could still keep adding to the existing SC while Silver finds its
foundations, and each new SC addition to WCAG 2.x could be an inspiration
for what could naturally emerge as part of Silver, once we get to defining
that. I understand that it's hard to commit to both, but in the name of the
greater good for accessibility, maybe we just need to pick our battles and
choose which activity we're individually going to contribute to the most.


/Denis


*Denis Boudreau, CPWA* | Principal Accessibility SME & Training Lead
| 514-730-9168
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
Deque.com <http://www.deque.com>





On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:54 AM Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> Ironically a -1 to the CFC is saying we shouldn’t do a 2.2. I think we’ll
> have to refine the question.
>
> -1 to a WCAG 2.2. I don't think its what the world needs.
>
> Happy to discuss.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> 1] https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3856-the-big-rewrite-revisited
>
>
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie
>
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 13:45:22 UTC

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