RE: Scheduling Approaches Survey update

Concerns remain that the survey does not accurately describe the options for consideration, and we have re-closed the survey.  We do apologize to all, and we continue to work to address these concerns.  We hope to have the issues addressed, and we will make an announcement in our Tuesday AGWG call on the status of the survey.

Regards,
Charles Adams

From: Alastair Campbell <alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com<mailto:alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com>>
Date: Thursday, 10 July 2025 at 11:01
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com<mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Scheduling Approaches Survey update
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$> / www.thisisgain.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.nomensa.com/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ZCdmCA8nqkAYtaqxVHrlsB58YbDIJ30RVVtJqaanuHWk0z12fiaQABkyjl4TG1De-MVZdZbuOin4LAhSVY_DW6KWp_KOpCp45w$>