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

Ok. Send me the paragraphs per below and I'll get on it when I'm back in the office after the 21st. Thx. LF

Lainey Feingold 
Law Office of Lainey Feingold 
Http://LFLegal.com
510.548.5062
(C) 510.823.4205
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/lflegal

> On Apr 11, 2016, at 9:05 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Lainey,
>  
> We would love you to do that!!
>  
> And if you don’t mind, would you please subscribe to the WAI Interest Group list so your posts can be viewed worldwide by those interested in accessibility but not only be W3C member organization (it is an  open list, but you have to join to have your post seen)?
>  
> To join:
> • To subscribe to the list, send e-mail to w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org with "subscribe" as the subject.
> • To unsubscribe from the list, send e-mail to w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org with "unsubscribe" as the subject.
>  
> ​​​​​
>  
>  
>  
> * 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: Lainey Feingold [mailto:LF@LFLegal.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:56 PM
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea @ GMAIL (ryladog@gmail.com) <ryladog@gmail.com>
> Cc: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Macintosh, Kristy (OMAFRA) <Kristy.Macintosh@ontario.ca>
> Subject: Re: Regulatory / Government requirements for - WCAG Next Possible Models
>  
> Dear all:  Thanks Katie for including me in this email.  It’s true I mentioned the issue to a DOJ lawyer who was at CSUN, but I would not read anything into that conversation and would certainly not draw any conclusions about what the DOJ might think or do!  
>  
> I really appreciate the group's willingness to find out whether the “legal side” has a consensus opinion (or many opinions) about how updates/revisions should be structured.  In the U.S., there is a small group of private and non-profit lawyers who handle cases about web, mobile and other digital (mainly kiosk) accessibility.  Whether we do Structured Negotiation, file cases, or file administrative complaints, we are very cooperative with each other and often discuss issues that impact all of our cases and our clients. If it would be helpful, I can talk to the lawyers and see if there is an interest in weighing in and if so, maybe we could all have a call with all/some of you. (Or if there are no opinions - at least you’ll know that!)  There are also a few lawyers who represent companies in a lot of ADA web cases and I would probably check in with a few of them.
>  
>  In addition to us, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Transportation have relied on WCAG 2.0 AA as the web (and mobile) standard in both enforcement and regulatory activities.  I could follow-up with the conversations begun at CSUN and see if the DOJ wants to share their thoughts or loop in the others. 
>  
> Lastly, if you want feedback about what AODA activists think, have you talked with Canadian lawyer and activist David Lepofsky? If not, I can put you in touch with him.
>  
> So….If you want me to follow up with some/any of this, can you please send 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the question/s the working group would like opinions about and the topics of revision (I know about mobile and low vision, but think there may be others)
>  
> Thanks again for such careful attention to this and for everything you all do!
>  
> Lainey
>  
>  
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> Alan,
>  
> From a USA perspective….I spoke with Lainey Feingold at CSUN specifically about a WCAG 2.1 possibility and my best practices idea, and she then in turn ran it by some Dept. of Justice attorneys who were there also. I think those talks are on-going, and not official – but I think the idea was not discounted outright, and worthy of further discussion. 
> ​​​​
>  
> * katie *
>  
> Katie Haritos-Shea 
> Chair, WAI Interest Group
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>  
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545
>  
> <image001.png>
>  
> From: ALAN SMITH [mailto:alands289@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:12 PM
> 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.orgwith 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
>  
> Lainey Feingold
> Law Office of Lainey Feingold
> http://lflegal.com/
> 510.548.5062
> LF@LFLegal.com
> Follow on Twitter
>  
> Coming this Fall from the American Bar Association: Structured Negotiation | A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits.
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at LF@LFLegal.com and delete it permanently from your computer files.  Thank you.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>