Re: Scheduling Approaches Survey update

I will respond directly to the chairs.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:01 PM Alastair Campbell <
alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com> wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
>
> You objected to the framing of the survey, we thought it best to pause
> entries for that until we could consider your points.
>
>
>
> We have updated the survey
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/wbs/35422/approach_survey/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZCdmCA8nqkAYtaqxVHrlsB58YbDIJ30RVVtJqaanuHWk0z12fiaQABkyjl4TG1De-MVZdZbuOin4LAhSVY_DW6KWp_J4VatpLw$>,
> and would like to respond to the comments:
>
>
>
> > The term "Partial Scope" fundamentally misrepresents the incremental
> approach. Each publication would be a complete W3C Recommendation - WCAG
> 3.0, 3.1, etc. These aren't "partial" specifications but full,
> implementable standards that build on each other, back-filling gaps with
> WCAG 2 content.
>
>
>
> In comparison to the “Full WCAG3” scope, or the “Minimal Regulatory WCAG
> 3” (the new terms for those options), it is a part, therefore partial. We
> have renamed the partial option “incremental”, but it would be misleading
> to call it complete in a comparison with the other options.
>
>
>
> Also, the first incremental publication could not be “back-filled” with
> WCAG 2 content. If we are picking a few high-priority items then the*
> majority* would be WCAG 2 content and structure.  If you don’t believe
> that to be the case, we ask that you share your vision of how we could
> focus on a few items to update without using mostly WCAG 2 content.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Interim documents" is incorrect: This characterization suggests these
> would be temporary or incomplete publications. In reality, each would be an
> official W3C Recommendation that stands on its own and remains valid even
> as future versions are published.
>
>
>
> As above, in comparison to the other options, it is partial.  It would be
> a Rec doc, but because it is incomplete, it seems unlikely to be picked up
> if there is another one coming soon. This is particularly the case if it is
> not just additive but backwards-incompatible, as each version would likely
> be.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Confusing contrast with "Regulatory Adoption Scope": Setting "Partial
> Scope" against "Regulatory Adoption Scope" creates the false impression
> that incremental releases wouldn't be suitable for regulatory adoption. The
> opposite is true - the incremental approach aims to deliver
> regulatory-adoptable standards sooner.
>
>
>
> As above, unless and until there is some new law to trigger adoption it’s
> unlikely that regulators will pick up any version. If a new version is not
> backwards-compatible (which none of the options are, including each
> increment), that adds overhead for change, and chairs and staff believe
> regulators are likely to wait for the ‘final’ version.
>
>
>
> However, as Bruce said regulators are inscrutable so it’s best not to plan
> around them. An equally valid question is whether incremental updates would
> get more uptake than notes from those who aren’t forced to by regulation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The survey doesn't acknowledge that incremental publication could
> deliver real accessibility improvements to users years earlier than waiting
> for a comprehensive release.
>
>
>
> Each of the approaches could deliver improvements before a comprehensive
> release (assuming you mean the “Full WCAG 3 Scope” or “Minimal Regulatory
> Scope” options). That isn’t a difference between the options. One approach
> would deliver the high-priority content in non-normative notes. These would
> be for people to use in a WCAG 2 context until the new-structure and
> content is ready for WCAG 3.
>
>
>
> The other approach would update WCAG 2 incrementally, taking substantially
> longer to get to the same scope because we would have to go through
> publishing and re-writing at each increment.
>
>
>
> We have done our best to address the concerns you raised while still
> keeping the language as clear as possible to avoid confusion in the
> previous survey.
>
> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/approach_survey/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/wbs/35422/approach_survey/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZCdmCA8nqkAYtaqxVHrlsB58YbDIJ30RVVtJqaanuHWk0z12fiaQABkyjl4TG1De-MVZdZbuOin4LAhSVY_DW6KWp_J4VatpLw$>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair & Chairs
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> alastairc.uk
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/alastairc.uk/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZCdmCA8nqkAYtaqxVHrlsB58YbDIJ30RVVtJqaanuHWk0z12fiaQABkyjl4TG1De-MVZdZbuOin4LAhSVY_DW6KWp_L6dNZWiQ$>
> / www.thisisgain.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.nomensa.com/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZCdmCA8nqkAYtaqxVHrlsB58YbDIJ30RVVtJqaanuHWk0z12fiaQABkyjl4TG1De-MVZdZbuOin4LAhSVY_DW6KWp_KOpCp45w$>
>
>
>
>

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