Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates

Hi Rachael,

Nice work in condensing and operationalizing 
I think this is close - just missing one critical element.  

I would add to the second bullet 
> Lower levels have less strict requirements to be added, and are accompanied by the issues they are meant to address, the concerns or problems that must be solved for their inclusion, and questions to the field (or our own members) asking for input/help to address the issues.

That is - if we are including lower level topics before we have anything that could pass at higher levels - we need to include with them - the question and issues that need to be solved in order for them to progress — asking for input from the field (or our own members) to address them.  If we aren’t doing that then it is not clear what the purpose of putting them in is.   if we do - it will help get them in I think. 

Now some of this will raise issues and discussion about what needs to be true for them to progress.  But that is good — it needs to be done and should be done as early as possible.    If it is desired to put things in without this discussion - then that would just be asking for even more discontent later when that discussion comes up in order to progress (as it must) and something that fails them then becomes something that is/was "already in the guidelines and is now being rejected".  It also is helpful to those working on a provision to know what the elements are that are needed for it to progress. 

In essence - it is adopting the "levels of maturity" along with a definition of what it takes to "mature" and noting with each immature item what is left to do to move it forward. 

Gregg

———————————
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Oct 15, 2021, at 4:40 PM, Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hello Andrew and Gregg,
>  
> Thank you for emailing your thoughts.
>  
> The goal of this approach was partially to address concerns about adding content and then needing to backtrack without clear labeling and process.
>  
> Is it fair to say that from your perspective, that you would support this plan if the following are true?
> Each stage requires survey/meeting centered consensus with the higher level/levels also requiring CFC
> Lower levels have less strict requirements to be added
> Only placeholders and the highest levels of maturity be moved to working draft
> A clear method for removing/replacing content is articulated and only the higher levels move from editor’s draft to working draft?
>  
> Did I misunderstand or misstate anything?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Rachael
>  
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 at 11:43 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>, "Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael" <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
> Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates
>  
> Thanks Gregg. I share many of your concerns.
>  
> In WCAG 2.1 we made a mistake in adding proposed SC into the editor’s draft and luckily we caught it before the 1st WD but it was a painful no-win scenario – on one hand there was no way that we were going to go out to public review with >50 new SC that hadn’t been fully vetted, but on the other there were ideas that were important to many people and some had the expectation that once it was in the editor’s draft that it was going to be in the final spec.
>  
> I believe that the risk of including content that hasn’t reached consensus into the editor’s draft and the working draft is risky and we will wind up spending more time responding to comments and critiques for unvetted content than we can afford. There is also a problem that I don’t see addressed in your presentation related to how content that is exploratory, maturing, or mature gets removed from the working drafts. Does it require consensus to remove it or consensus to keep it? At what point does this decision happen?
>  
> I can envision a proposed criterion that gets put in early and while it does mature to some degree, ultimately has problems (related to conformance or AT support or whatever). The WG may want to remove it but this is strongly opposed by a few individuals and at the same time keeping it in is strongly opposed by just as many or more. I think that this creates more problems than having items need to have consensus for inclusion in the draft.
>  
> Several times we have heard requests to add content into WCAG 3.0 that hasn’t been fully vetted by the WG, and the WG has grown increasingly uncomfortable with doing this. The result of that discomfort in August was that the WG agreed that we wouldn’t do that anymore and that the lack of a conformance model couldn’t be ignored any longer as it prevented the WG from fully analyzing proposals. We have heard many times that the ideas that are being proposed are very good and the idea seems to be that once the rest of the WG sees the positive response from the public review they will get it and we will be able to move forward. I don’t agree with that approach – there are many people on the WG with decades of experience and getting consensus across the WG is essential prior to expecting that a less-engaged public will provide additional scrutiny.
>  
> Yes, it is super hard to get new things into WCAG, but if you have a great idea then I believe it can run the gauntlet and enter the working draft stronger for that process.
>  
> Thanks,
> AWK
>  
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Director, Accessibility
> Adobe 
>  
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
>  
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
> Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 at 8:52 AM
> To: Rachael Bradley-Montgomery <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Friday, October 15, 2021 at 8:51 AM
>  
> RE: Levels of Maturity 
>  
> I think the idea of level of maturity labels is a great idea
>  
> There are a lot of good bits to it 
>  
> But I would change one bit - which I think is critical to process
>  
> Once something is in — it is very hard to get it back out
> Getting something back out - can use up a LOT of time and discussion getting it back out - slowing the group way down and creating bad feelings.
> If a subgroup can put things in without WG review (for expediency) it is likely to slow down the process down much more later (much more than any time saved up front) - and again - create bad feelings.  
> The only reason to include something early - is to get input on it because there is a question or sticking point where input is sought. 
> RECOMMENDATION
> That nothing go into any draft without WG consensus 
> The WG would be less strict about what goes in at lower levels - allowing things that it thinks might be added (there is some evidence that it might) even if wording is not worked out. 
> Language attached to such items would be commensurate with belief that they can make it or the concerns that need to be addressed.      And they should include a request for comment or input to address those. 
> If the subgroup cannot convince the working group to include something, even the lower level, it shouldn’t be there yet.   
> The editor’s, working, and public docs are all communication instruments of the working group - not any subgroup - so the working group should know and determine what is in its communications. 
>  
> I had a second thought at the meeting but cannot recall it now.  So I will pass this one on. 
>  
> Otherwise I think the basic concept — labeling things with level of Maturity — is a good one. 
>  
> Best
>  
>  
> gregg
> 
> ———————————
> Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
> Director , Trace R&D Center, UMD
>  
>  
> 
> On Oct 12, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <rmontgomery@loc.gov <mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>> wrote:
>  
> Hello,
>  
> I am adding in the Silver list.  When commenting on this proposal, please respond all this email.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Rachael
>  
> From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:51 AM
> To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Subject: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates
> Resent-From: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:50 AM
>  
> Hi everyone,
>  
> Regarding the presentation I gave on our process & WCAG 3.0 document, that presentation is here:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb/edit#slide=id.p1 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1MRuvJ6BcLCPfupvvrwL6GU-KsyWR76Tb%2Fedit%23slide%3Did.p1&data=04%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C78125adbd07f4308d96008d98fda8be0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637698991500935487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=4sRgODYuDwPEhVS87AmD4jBITGCc7gBU%2BV6zex4FOnc%3D&reserved=0>
>  
> The main point of the proposal is to change the expectation that the entire document has consensus and is ‘recommendation ready’.
>  
> You could consider the entire current Working Draft (WD) to be ‘exploratory’, but we have internal (and probably external) confusion about the intended maturity level of the document.
>  
> The proposal is to apply labels to each section of the documents which indicate the level of maturity, and have a level of review that each section needs to get to for that level.
>  
> The official Working Draft would have the more mature content, the Editors Draft would include everything being worked on. Both would have the labels.
>  
> Meeting time is rather precious at the moment, we wanted to put this proposal in front of everyone, get some feedback (here) for broader points, and then have a survey/discussion.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> -- 
>  
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C78125adbd07f4308d96008d98fda8be0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637698991500935487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=nA8wBTvsbn4p2VMVdD70m%2BYDY7PsTjA87K3q30XKQ58%3D&reserved=0>