RE: Regulatory / Government requirements for - WCAG Next Possible Models

Speaking from experience as a previous member of the US Access Board, I 
strongly recommend that we solicit the board's staff feedback.  For 
example, there are processes in place that allow currently referenced 
technical standards (such as WCAG 2.0 is proposed to be in the 508 
Refresh), which then allow for a simple update "fast path" to the policy 
(such as the 508 Refresh) to now reference the new technical standard with 
a new effective date, etc.  I'm sure companies and other enterprises, 
universities, and other government around the world have similar ways to 
update their policies.  I'm using the term "policies" in a broad sense, 
whether legally binding or not. 

Asking attorneys in the DOJ will give you a more legal interpretation, 
while asking the US Access Board staff, will be a little more practical 
because it is their standard, (not DOJ's) that directly references WCAG 
2.0; and it is the board that would have to use the regulatory process to 
update the 508 standard to reference the new WCAG Next, whether it is 2.1, 
2.0 + platform extension, etc. The US Access Board also owns the ADA 
standards, that the DOJ then adopts and enforce those provisions 
applicable to them.  Dept of Transportation adopts and enforces theirs, 
Dept of Under Water Basket Weaving theirs, etc. (sorry, that was a joke).

We should also ask about timing/schedule.  I do not believe the board 
could turn around a "fast path" reference to a technical standard any 
faster than 1-2 years.  So if WCAG Next were published every 2 years, then 
it may take another 1-2 years for the government policy to be updated to 
reference it.  But I believe we are talking about a "fast path" process 
here, not the full process that is currently being used for the 508 
Refresh. 

Remember, when WCAG Next is published, however it is published, whenever 
it is published, the "policy makers" still get to decide if and when they 
adopt the new WCAG Next,  That is a process separate from the W3C WCAG 
Working group and process.  Lets not try to confuse the two. 
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 




From:   "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com>
To:     "'ALAN SMITH'" <alands289@gmail.com>, "'Mike Elledge'" 
<melledge@yahoo.com>, "'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL'" <ryladog@gmail.com>, 
"'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "'Macintosh, Kristy 
\(OMAFRA\)'" <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   04/11/2016 11:28 AM
Subject:        RE: Regulatory / Government requirements for - WCAG Next 
Possible Models



Hi Alan,
 
If the question is, have we specifically targeted individuals from 
regulatory or government bodies to solicit feedback, the answer (as far as 
I know) is No, we have not.

The original email (archived here: 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016AprJun/0014.html) was 
sent to two W3C mailing lists related to accessibility, as well as 
graciously mirrored by WebAIM on their mailing list. The original email 
urged wide distribution and sharing, and if you can help facilitate that 
amongst those constituents please do so. It is recognized that those 
actors are also involved in our decisions and outcomes.
 
While we have not attached a hard-deadline for commenting, we *are* 
anxious to reach some clarity within the next 2 or 3 weeks if possible.
 
Cheers!
 
JF
 
From: ALAN SMITH [mailto:alands289@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL 
<ryladog@gmail.com>; 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com>; 'Andrew 
Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)' 
<Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Regulatory / Government requirements for - WCAG Next Possible 
Models
 
All,
 
We all have great ideas and I?ve enjoyed reading all the comments.
 
One thing that I have not heard is: 
 
Have we considered contacting any of the various regulatory or government 
bodies and queried them as to how they would like revisions to WCAG 2.0 
structured from a legal reference and compliance standpoint?
 
This is an important group of our users.
 
Once we understand their requirements, we would have more freedom to 
structure the content for revisions, updates and additions based on 
topics, coverage, disability needs, new taskforces, success criterion, 
understandability, technology or other considerations as time goes on.
 
Regards,
 
Alan
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Mike Elledge
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:38 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; 'John Foliot'; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 
'Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
I like David's proposal, with release of updates dependent on readiness 
and not a strict time-schedule. I also agree with Katie's idea of Best 
Practices becoming normative for an update. 
 
One of the strengths of having periodic updates is that it would provide a 
benchmark for a collection of new techniques, success criteria and 
failures that could be easily referenced, for review and implementation. I 
worry that publishing individual extensions would complicate the process 
of introducing new criteria by enabling organizations to cherry-pick the 
criteria they would apply, and would cause confusion as the number of 
extensions proliferated, i.e., these extensions are included, these are 
not. It also will reflect (appropriately, I believe) the priorities 
established by the working group, and smooth the way for eventual 
adoption, along with subsequent updates, as WCAG 3.0.
 
Mike
 
On Monday, April 11, 2016 10:46 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
 
In my model, Best Practices would actually be the Success Criteria of WACG 
2.1, those same items would be non-normative Best Practices for WCAG 2.0
 
?????
 
 
 
* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | 
Office: 703-371-5545
 
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:26 AM
To: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'Macintosh, Kristy 
(OMAFRA)' <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
Hi Andrew,
 
Good question. Katie Haritos-Shea suggested ??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? which 
suggests to me that they would be Normative if using WCAG 2.1, but Best 
Practices if using WCAG 2.0. It?s an interesting idea, and may be a 
workable way to transition from one to the other.
 
David MacDonald has also spoken of Best Practices, but I think in a 
slightly different context. (David, please confirm or correct). My read of 
David?s idea is that there are some things we know will ultimately benefit 
end-users if widely adopted, but that for some reason these ?things? (yes, 
deliberately vague for now) may not be able to be written as testable 
statements, or may only be applicable by technology (mobile/touch screen) 
or platform (Kristi?s eLearning needs). If I am to understand David?s 
idea, it would be a new ?category? of guidance from WCAG ? less 
?legislatively stringent? than an actual Success Criteria, but a 
none-the-less measurable (or reportable) development technique(s) that do 
more than just satisfy an arbitrary line in the sand (a concern raised 
elsewhere by folks like Paul Adam), but actually are demonstrably better 
for people with disabilities. A <strawman> WCAG 2.0 AA Plus</strawman> as 
it were.
 
(Keep the ideas flowing folks)
 
JF
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:15 AM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; 'Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)' <
Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
John,
Are best practices normative like WCAG 2.0 or non-normative like 
techniques?
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk
 
From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:06
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "'Macintosh, Kristy 
(OMAFRA)'" <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
Although? If I am hearing Kristy clearly (and her desire for a 
platform-specific ?version? is not the first to surface on this list) ? I 
think one of the things this discussion is also surfacing is the need for 
what David MacDonald refers to as ?Best Practices?, and possibly we need 
Best Practice documents based on technology or platform.
 
Kristy, would that solve your more immediate need? Andrew, is that 
something the WCAG WG might look to create?
 
Thanks for all the input folks!
 
JF
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:03 AM
To: Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA) <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>; John Foliot 
<john.foliot@deque.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
Kristy,
 
Nothing that the group does will make what you need to do to meet AODA 
change.  If we did publish a 2.1, Ontario is still targeting 2.0 AA.  At 
some point, Ontario might decide to update to WCAG 2.1 (or perhaps it 
waits until a ?3.0? standard is available) and then you would be affected, 
but we are not seeking to (nor are we able to) change what WCAG 2.0 says. 
 
WCAG 2.0 says what it says and that won?t change.  We can publish an 
updated version or publish extensions, but those would need to be 
addressed in new or updated policies and legislation just like WCAG 2.0 
was. 
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk
 
From: "Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA)" <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:13
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models
Resent-From: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:14
 
Hi,
 
I am in support of option: WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or 
platform.
 
I work for the Government of Ontario and as of this past January (2016) we 
are required by the AODA regulation (
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191#BK15) to make all our public 
facing web content comply to WCAG 2.0 Level AA guidelines. A significant 
change to the guidelines could have a huge impact on the work we have 
already done.
 
A part of our online content is online learning courses (eLearning) and 
they must also be complaint to WCAG Level AA which is not a straight 
forward process. These guidelines apply very different to eLearning than 
to a website or electronic document. I emailed out to the group list a few 
weeks ago looking for anyone else that was trying to work through defining 
how WCAG applies to actual eLearning courses and unfortunately there is 
not a lot of information out there so we are working through developing 
this. I think that the guidelines would best be served if they are kept 
mostly as is but had an eLearning extension that developers of online 
learning can use to ensure that they are meeting guidelines for online 
learning courses.
 
Thanks,
Kristy 
 
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: April-08-16 12:36 PM
To: WCAG; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: WCAG Next Possible Models
 
[Please share freely]
Colleagues,
The WCAG Working Group is looking for public feedback and comment on the 
creation of extensions to WCAG 2.0. Your input is being solicited today 
and comments should be forwarded to the WAI IG Mailing list with the 
subject line: WCAG Next Possible Models. Background information and more 
details on how to comment follow.
BACKGROUND
Earlier in March, a discussion started off at the W3C on what WCAG.next 
should look like. That initial discussion has actually forked into two 
related discussion, the differentiator being a question of time.
The first discussion revolves around a big-picture major revision of WCAG. 
This discussion is looking at what the next generation of accessibility 
guidance should look like, and it incorporates thoughts around integrating 
UAAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0 into a more integrated approach. This is an exciting 
idea, and it is envisioned that this will be a 3 to 5 year undertaking 
(perhaps longer). 
Slightly more pressing however is the fact that there are a number of Task 
Forces at the W3C that are looking at building ?extensions? to WCAG 2.0, 
to provide additional guidance (including possible new Success Criteria, 
Understanding and Techniques documents) around topics such as Mobile 
accessibility, Low Vision concerns, and addressing the needs of those with 
Cognitive disabilities. Some of this effort is becoming fairly mature, and 
so the second discussion is around what are we going to do with all of 
this guidance and content. The content coming from the Task Forces is 
nearing completion, and it is badly needed today. I think most can agree 
that we cannot wait another 3 to 5 years for a major ?refresh? of WCAG 
2.0., and the Working Group has been chartered to create extensions to 
WCAG 2.0 in this interim period.
The WCAG Working Group are now looking at what then, exactly, will WCAG 
2.0 extensions look like?
SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENTS
So far, discussion has surface 4 potential ?strawman? possibilities, which 
can be found at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models
We have not ruled out other possible models however, and so there still 
exists the possibility of yet a 5th , 6th , or more possible strawman 
proposal(s). Critical to the final decision however is that we also ensure 
broad public comment and input in an effort to ensure we have the best 
possible model moving forward.
Which is the purpose of this email. 
If you use, or are impacted by the use of, WCAG 2.0 we want to hear your 
thoughts. The goal is to gather as much feedback as possible over the next 
2 or 3 weeks so that an informed decision can be made. This is your 
opportunity to contribute to that discussion. Please note that at this 
time nothing is committed one way or the other, and there exists the 
possibility that unanimity may never surface, but every effort is being 
made to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to speak up.
If you would like to comment on this activity, please review the possible 
models already brought forward at 
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models. 
·        What are the Pros? The Cons? 
·        Do you have any other comments to add? 
·        Do you have a preference? 
·        Do you have another potential model not yet contemplated? 
All of these questions are in scope, and we?re excited to hear everyone?s 
thoughts on this topic.
HOW TO COMMENT:
To ensure we can get as broad a community feedback as possible, we are 
using the WAI IG Mailing list at w3c-wai-ig@w3.org with the Subject Line: 
WCAG Next Possible Models. This public mailing list is open to all to 
participate in, once you have signed up to be a member of that list. 
Information on how to join the WAI-IG mailing list can be found at 
https://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#mailinglist
Please note that we are also currently looking for a possible means of 
collecting anonymous feedback as well, and if/when we have that ability we 
will further advise. 
Our goal is to gather this feedback over the next 2 or 3 weeks, and 
present out findings to the Working Group with a proposed recommendation 
on how to move forward. While comments and feedback to the WCAG Working 
Group are always welcome, we hope to wrap this up fairly quickly, and so 
if you wish to comment you are urged to do so soon. 
This is an unique opportunity to gather community feedback, and we look 
forward to hearing your thoughts.
JF
?-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Austin, TX
 
Deque Systems Inc.
2121 Cooperative Way, Suite 210, 
Herndon, VA 20171-5344
Office: 703-225-0380 
john.foliot@deque.com
 
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion