W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 17:31:44 +0200
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.yfnr26xis7agh9@widsith.local>
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 01:50:07 +0200, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
>
>> ... if we're not ready to incorporate all the task force work then lets  
>> wait to release the next version we are.
>> Currently there is *no* model that says we will have one important 2.x  
>> release that incorporates *all* the task force work...
>
> I think this is the most realistic model, and very similar to what I was  
> proposing in having a single extension document. I’ve actually been  
> through the experience (once only) of taking a document all the way to  
> W3C Recommendation. It was WCAG 1.0, and I was a working group  
> participant at the time.
>
> I would like to back up everything that Gregg Vanderheiden says, in his  
> wise words of advice, about what is involved in achieving it – not to  
> discourage anyone, but to point out how complex an undertaking it is.  
> Gregg has worked through the process at least twice, and as Co-Chair on  
> both occasions, an achievement which is deserving of an award in my  
> opinion.
>
> Expect controversy, potentially large numbers of comments, and schedules  
> that can so easily slip… significantly.
>
> If you want a current example, have a look at what is happening today in  
> ARIA 1.1 in terms of its planned completion schedule; and ARIA has been  
> progressing according to schedule to a much greater extent than certain  
> other specifications have done.

I've played pretty much every role in produc W3C Recommendations over the  
last 2 decades. As chair I've shipped a number, as editor both from start  
to finish and by taking the role for a while, as a Working Group  
participant, as the AC rep for the primary drivers of a set of specs, even  
as AC rep for people opposed to the work. I've also played pretty much  
every role in trying to make Recommendations that ended up in failure.

I think the ARIA 1.1 example is a good one to look at. Schedules do slip,  
and things turn out to be harder than we thought. Nevertheless I think it  
is likely that ARIA 1.1 will ship, within some reasonable approximation of  
its timetable.

But in particular with making revisions, my experience is that smaller is  
easier. If we work towards a major rewrite, there is a lot of pressure to  
get everything in, and right, before we ship. This was how e.g. CSS 2.1,  
SVG 1.2, WCAG 2.0 and HTML 5 all took so many years. HTML 5 would quite  
possibly still not be finished if we hadn't decided a few years ago to  
work on a date-driven process of adding incremental updates to HTML as  
they are ready.

Having a clear sense that we have a production cycle, that things not  
ready for this round will be included in the next which is a year or so  
away rather than a decade, generally reduces the pressure to hold up  
everything while one more thing gets finished - a trap, since then one  
other thing is almost ready and should be included.

"Shipping is a feature". And setting the goals in a way that provides  
pressure to get work done to a high enough quality for inclusion now,  
rather than to motivate delaying releases, is a very helpful way to  
achieve it.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2016 15:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 April 2016 15:32:21 UTC