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

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

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:25:02 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP740135D484B4AD8A8A877EFE940@phx.gbl>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I will go with the group conscience on the model going forward ... I had
responded to Charles that I'd be willing to amend my proposal
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models/Model_5
to go with a Dec 2017 ship date... and then fall back to the model 4 if
groups are not ready...

So I'm guessing the only difference between mine and #4 is that I would
like to give the Task forces and WCAG another 6 months or so to try to put
one comprehensive update together....

I'm nervous that if Mobile success criteria ship without the COGA and  LV
Success criteria, that cognitive and Low Vision will be under represented
again, and there won't be a lot of motivation to make the hard decisions
and compromises necessary to get these more difficult requirements (that
are harder to test etc.) included in WCAG, and they will live in note world
largely ignored.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> David,
> I’ve shared these comments with you separately but will add to the list
> here regarding your proposed item.
>
> I don’t think that it is necessarily different from option #4, but I think
> that your #5 is making more assumptions than I’m comfortable with.
>
> In both we are encouraging the task forces that currently exist to get
> moving and come up with draft SC’s.
>
> If the draft SC’s from the TFs are agreed on quickly, and there are no
> additional task forces suggesting SC’s, and no additional SC’s coming from
> the working group, then maybe we wind up with a WCAG 2.1 and there is no
> need for a WCAG 2.2.  I think that is a lot of maybes.
>
> We are talking about a 3-year window for this work.  I don’t think that
> three new versions would be possible.  Two might be, but it might not be
> needed if all of the “ifs” indicated above come to pass.
>
> I think that it is risky to plan for a WCAG 2.1 that needs to build in all
> of the task force work.
>
>    - What if one of the task forces is slower than the others?  How long
>    should we wait?
>    - What if there is a new task force?  Do we wait for SC from that TF?
>
> I think that we can, and probably should have a regular update cadence for
> WCAG 2.x, and for future major versions also.  We know that new
> technologies present ongoing challenges to WCAG’s original language.  Some
> of this can be addressed in techniques, but some cannot.  Even in this
> discussion we are talking about integrating UAAG and ATAG criteria into a
> future combined guideline, and that will take time.  What if we can’t get
> that major update out until 2022?  Would it be better to plan on
> incremental WCAG 2.x updates until that new standard is ready?
>
> Circling back to the idea of an all-encompassing 2.1 – I’m not opposed to
> this idea, but what I’m most worried about is it taking forever because
> there are always new reasons to delay the publication:  There’s a new TF
> and it is really important; lack of consensus on a couple of new SCs delays
> publication because people want to take "one more try” (again) to convince
> people; and more…  As co-chair, what I really want is to get a standard out
> that addresses as many gaps as we can, in an efficient, timely, and
> predictable process and time-frame.  Part of the reason that we can get
> techniques out every six months is that there is another publication on the
> horizon.  When we didn’t do the techniques twice a year we published them
> once every two years and there was always this same sort of pressure to
> wait and publish after the group did more because where we were at was not
> good enough. It never is, and the same will be true of WCAG 2.1 if we take
> that approach.
>
> You also say " it is incredibly expensive and time consuming for
> stakeholders to update policy, legislation, and their web sites every
> year.” - How many countries update their policies and legislation every
> year?  I’d guess zero.  I’d love to hear from actual policy-makers about
> this.  I hear lots of people saying we can’t do something because the
> policy-makers won’t like it, but we really need to hear what policy-makers
> say rather than what people who aren’t policy-makers think that they would
> say.
>
> Great discussion everyone – keep it coming!
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
> Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 at 19:01
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, John Foliot <
> john.foliot@deque.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Subject: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...
>
> I *don't* think we should be saying we'll have 2 or 3 new versions of WCAG
> in the next 3 years... it is incredibly expensive and time consuming for
> stakeholders to update policy, legislation, and their web sites every
> year... 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 that needs to
> be discussed... I put up a WIKI page here, and would like to see this added
> to the straw man list...
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models/Model_5
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 15:25:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 April 2016 15:25:36 UTC