Re: Survey for WCAG3 detailed requirements

Hey Alastair,
Apologies if this wasn't clear. I wasn't asking to discuss the goals. I was
asking to discuss the structure we use to write goals *before *we discuss
the goals themselves. You asked the group for feedback, out of 15
respondents only 8 said they thought the structure would work. That
suggests (to me) there is no consensus on using this format. Is the intent
to move forward with this format despite that, or is there some plan for
discussing the format later?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 2:37 PM Alastair Campbell <
alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com> wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
>
> As I said before:
>
> > We will be going through each item individually to refine the wording
> and apply a timeline.
>
>
>
> Assertions are first.
>
>
>
> The survey was to resolve what we call these things internally. We kinda
> got stuck on nomenclature, which didn’t seem like a great use of meeting
> time.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> PS. Apologies to all for the odd “footer” at the top of my previous email.
> Based on that blooper I’ve managed to opt-out of the company auto-sig. I
> think.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 2 June 2025 at 13:01
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Survey for WCAG3 detailed requirements
>
> You don't often get email from wilco.fiers@deque.com. Learn why this is
> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
> Hey Alastair,
>
> > As we have not completely worked through the solutions, it would be
> premature to answer questions such as how much effort a solution requires
> from authors, or what the risks/uncertainties are. These are good questions
> to document, either in editorial notes or in the WCAG3 explainer.  In our
> next charter we will include a commitment to doing this as the solutions
> are finalized.
>
> Estimating and risk management seems like pretty fundamental project
> management work to me. There are various ways you could do estimating of
> this work. If there are a lot of unknowns, all that means is that you have
> a large margin of error, that then becomes one of the risks of that
> particular goal.
>
> I think this needs to be on the AGWG agenda soon. Surely you asked us to
> fill out this survey so that we could come to some sort of shared approach
> on how to improve on WCAG 3.0 goals. So then let's discuss these points
> where we disagree so we can come to a shared understanding.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 10:07 AM Alastair Campbell <
> alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com> wrote:
>
> *Alastair Campbell*
>
> *Director of Accessibility*
>
> E:
>
> alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com
>
> [image: Gain. Creativity, Data, Technology. ThisIsGain.com]
> <https://uk.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisisgain.com%2F&tenantid=QreU1CWZEfCl72BFvdJqtQ&templateid=202cb1c2d325f011a5ef6045bdd26ab5&excomponentid=R4dG91vpY2x-Ib9rS3gEbIT6dRRdt6k9mKCw8Ka5zso&excomponenttype=Image&signature=FXPPllj7RYLB6JmXgr-d7ewRgOJpbH8b6rO9CT6sTdVznRwiQfkySP8fNC0NAftHcPcGETNxB-Pape1QtbkOwGc8RMpsd9tNDMNSKC_8x-Y2KsXMac7eV-s5fv6YmP9W_lrEE4P73UbgnD59C1KLMTqf9JJ8FjSL4_CFaunLhgErGC-MNcMr0iZ1Ifq3BBpIQhzRvue30zemNUKxdrQ3O7ETkzTdRu7wHshxw-evwPkxWOxCg5FyUHrMNxnTJj43t-gIq3EHndM_dJ6acG5R4-V5fBod5tUujyzk997yn4Hduh7IoPsoc23nWM4T6G0oW_-PysTPhxcma7R1FjLN2A&v=1&imprintMessageId=1a299e59-090e-4fb5-b258-59b8c81848eb>
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We (the chairs) wanted to follow up on the discussion from the last
> meeting, which was about:
>
>
>
> Writing a list of criteria/approaches for how we will meet the Requirements
> documents for WCAG 3
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#requirements>.
>
>
>
> There was a question about what we call these (internally to the group).
> Based on the survey
> <https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/Naming_convention/results/>, we're going
> with "Requirements Checkpoints". This is an internal name for us to use
> when referencing them, and is not for general public consumption.
>
>
>
> The *purpose* of these more detailed requirements for WCAG3 is to
> organise our work. We will be going through each item individually to
> refine the wording and apply a timeline.
>
>
>
> In response to some of the comments in the survey:
>
>
>
> The comment on structure is reasonable, but these are requirements *for*
> WCAG3, not the accessibility requirements *in* WCAG3.
>
>
>
> The problems we are solving are coming from the requirements document,
> which came from the Silver group's research.
>
>
>
> The suggested solutions are the consensus solutions of the working group.
> We've discussed many solutions; these are the ones the group has thought
> most appropriate.
>
>
>
> As we have not completely worked through the solutions, it would be
> premature to answer questions such as how much effort a solution requires
> from authors, or what the risks/uncertainties are. These are good questions
> to document, either in editorial notes or in the WCAG3 explainer.  In our
> next charter we will include a commitment to doing this as the solutions
> are finalized.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Director accessibility automation - W3C AC representative - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Director accessibility automation - W3C AC representative - Facilitator ACT
Task Force