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

John and All,


For the record my vote on the current task at hand is:


*         Combine all current Task Force requirements (Success Criteria and any new Guidelines) with existing WCAG 2 into a new standard WCAG 2.1

*         Add the new Techniques to the WCAG Techniques list

*         Add the new Understanding content from the Task Forces to the Understanding document – calling it Understanding WCAG 2.1

*         Advertise/socialize/promote the idea, for those organizations required to continue to conform with WCAG 2.0 for some period of time, that they should think about adding any new requirements in WCAG 2.1 as strongly supported *best practices* to their existing routine – so if/when the day comes that they are able to change what they need to conform to, they will be closely up-to-date – and persons with disabilities affected by their routine will have the most relevant/meaningful level of accessibility


NOTE: To speed up the publication of WCAG 2.1, those Task Forces that have completed their work and the remaining WCAG Working Group members – should help the last task force get their work done – by working together we can get this thing out the door rapidly……



For future work:


*         Continue to understand and support the accessibility standards needs and logistics of industry, legistlation and governments

*         Continue to provide the education and outreach that this particularly unique set of standards needs via the W3C

*         Collaborate with universities and non-profits in the education space to increase accessibility career offerings and degrees – as well as public education and outreach

*         Look at providing an updated standard that incorporates requirements of WCAG, ATAG and UAAG – such as a WAI 1.0 – every 3 years (could be 2, but no more than 3)

*         Promote strongly the *best practices approach* (for not yet required Success Criteria) for keeping current in practice with each new iteration of the standard



* katie *


Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)


Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <> | Oakton, VA |  <> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545


From: Kurt Mattes [] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:39 AM
To: White, Jason J <>
Cc: John Foliot <>; Phill Jenkins <>; WCAG <>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <>; Chaals McCathie Nevile <>; David MacDonald <>; Jutta Treviranus <>; WCAG <>; Jutta Treviranus <>
Subject: Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...


Changing the normative language of WCAG need not be akin to moving a big heavy should not require tremendous effort each time the normative language needs to change. The historical approach to change guarantees that when the latest and greatest is published it is already out of date. This process must be more nimble. 


Many 'standards' bodies make frequent changes. Some have more aggressive laws, regulations, and policy makers supporting them than others. Some rely more of the forces of the marketplace than others. The 'teeth' (for lack of a better term) behind standards is a separate matter, one that cannot be overlooked but also cannot get in the way of necessary change. The point is that the WCAG WG needs to stop trying to make change difficult and start contemplating ways to make it easier, quicker, able to adapt to changing technology in a more timely manner. 


Which model? Perhaps some of all of the proposed models is what is needed. By itself any of the proposed models comes with a bit of shoehorning. The pros of one are in some cases the cons of another. Picking just one will perpetuate the rigidity that makes changing WCAG akin to moving a large, heavy rock. 


Finding a way to keep WCAG/accessibility closer to new technologies, able to incorporate new information about disabilities, and ready to publish changes in months rather than years will better serve people with disabilities. Isn't that what WCAG/ATAG/UAAG are all about. 


Sure, 'industry' will whine and complain, but again that is a separate matter. This body must put forth what is good and right for people with disabilities. It needs to contemplate the challenges 'industry' will encounter but not be inhibited by it. Perhaps a separate body is needed to address the concerns of 'industry' while working with policy makers and regulators to find a balance where progress is possible but not slowed or stopped by 'industry'. Using the WCAG WG as a means to address the needs of all stakeholders is simply too restricting. 


Unless the WCAG WG decides who they are working for, people with disabilities will continue to pay a very high and hard to measure price. Pitting the needs of a person with a disability against the "needs" of 'industry' puts a person against profit. The person will lose almost every time.


No doubt I have wandered into a mine field. The W3C has an obligation to the members who support the organization and that is for the most part 'industry'. I am not proposing to ignore the needs of 'industry', rather to move that part of the discussion to a new area of the W3C so the WCAG WG can be more nimble and stop leaving people with disabilities several steps, several years behind.



On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:05 PM, White, Jason J < <> > wrote:



From: John Foliot [ <> ] 
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:55 PM

Thanks for this. It appears that there is growing support for the idea that WAI perhaps need to re-invigorate our efforts around the ideals of ATAG and UAAG more (and certainly Authoring Tools, which more than one commenter has noted already). I will be sure to ensure that this is captured as the valuable feedback it is for the larger “WAI 20202” discussion


An emphatic +1 to the above.


Returning to the shorter-term discussion of what do we do now, today (tomorrow, this month, this fiscal quarter), your response highlighted the words new devices and new technologies. Does this mean then that you believe that Option 1.2 WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or platform <>  is your preferred way forward? I’m trying to bring focus to the immediate need we are facing now: the fact that we are creating new (potential) Success Criteria, new “Best Practices”, new Techniques, etc. The question I want to look at closely here is what exactly are we going to do with that material? How do we “publish” it, and under what model?


I don't support technology or platform-specific, normative success criteria. The value and longevity of WCAG 2.0 owes much to the technology-independence of its success criteria, which have endured remarkably well in the face of important advances, for instance in mobile devices.


I think the best response is to integrate the work of the task forces into a list of high-quality success criteria, then either publish them as an extension document or as a WCAG 2.x document.





This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.




Kurt Mattes

Accessibility Program Manager

Deque Systems


Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 13:56:15 UTC