Minutes of WCAG.Next meeting at CSUN

A sub-group of the WCAG working group are discussing options for 
updating WCAG 2.0.  They have held two meetings to date (minutes are 
linked from the wiki below).  An open meeting was held at CSUN 2016 for 
people who were interested in discussing these options.  25-30 people 
attended.  These are transcribed minutes from paper notes.


wiki: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page/DesigningWCAG2.next

* WCAG 2.0 is 8 yrs old and is showing its age. Technology has changed 
and some user needs were not addressed
* Task Forces (mobile, low vision and cognitive) of the WCAG WG were 
formed to address these issues.
* The existing plan for WCAG Extensions has ambiguity
* Mobile Accessibility Task Force has identified 4 Guidelines and 
associated success criteria.  How do we publish it?
* Sites declare conformance to the WCAG version they select: e.g WCAG 
2.0, or WCAG 2.1.  It is for people who want guidance above and beyond 
WCAG 2.0, not to force people to upgrade before they are ready.
* Option: WCAG 2.1 model could be WCAG 2.0 plus the work of Mobile TF.  
Then WCAG 2.2 could be WCAG 2.1 plus the work of the next task force ready.
* Option: Another WCAG 2.1 model could be by milestone date: whatever 
work (from all the task forces) is ready by a milestone date could be 
included in that update (WCAG 2.1, 2.2, etc). How often should these 
updates occur? 6 months is too short, 3 years is too long.
* WCAG 3.0 (or whatever name) is a later project that could include ATAG 
and UAAG. Planning needs to begin in parallel to Task Force work.
* There is a need to coordinate more between task forces so WCAG WG can 
also work on WCAG 3
* There are concerns with timing of announcements and the impact on EU 

Meeting: WCAG.Next Planning
Location: CSUN Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Date: 24 March 2016
Chair: John Foliot
Attending includes: John Foliot (WCAG WG member), Katie Harritos-Shea 
(WCAG WG member), Judy Brewer (Director, WAI), Kathy Wahlbin 
(Co-facilitator of Mobile A11y Task Force (MATF)), Scott ?? (Chase), 
Jeanne Spellman (MATF member), Wilco Fiers (Automated WCAG Monitoring 
Community Group)

John: What is the Extension? There is ambiguity
... WCAG 2.0 is 8 years old and showing its age
... For example:
     * active icons in color contrast
     * advances in mobile technology
     * needs of low vision users
     * needs of cognitive users
... the 3 task forces (mobile, low vision and cognitive) are developing 
requirements and Techniques which they are sending to WCAG
... the 3 task forces are at different stages.  How should they be 
... the WAI2020 project last year raised questions and what needs to be 

Andrew: John has asked good questions about the details.  Each task 
force has been asked to provide:
1) Clear statement of requirements for end users
2) Gap analysis - including user agent needs
3) Suggestions for success criteria - (sometimes it is an interpretation 
of existing WCAG 2.0  success criteria)

Katie: Technology has changed, there are user needs that were not 
addressed.  We need to look at this in two pieces - what to do with the 
existing Extension work, and a later work that is a major revision of 
WCAG that includes UAAG and ATAG.

Judy: WAI2020 was looking 3-5 years from then. We are behind in the 
needs of the web. There is an interest in the combo guidelines.

John: The Mobile Accessibility Task Force has proposed Guidelines and 
Success Criteria. There are almost ready for prime-time.  How do we 
publish it?

Kathy: The Task Force began looking at important questions: What is 
mobile accessibility? Touch screens, small screens, distractible, etc. 
What we found is that mobile needs apply to all technology -- not just 
mobile.  Laptops have touch and small screens. The boundary  between 
desktop and mobile is blurred.
... if we can tweak WCAG keyboard success criteria to include touch 
issues: for example: No Keyboard Trap could become No Navigation Trap.
... the WCAG definition of Web Content needs updating, because it 
precludes hybrid apps.

John: No decisions today or even 30 days
... there are pages on the W3C WCAG wiki:
... we will email the minutes to WAI-IG mailing list

Topic: Possible Models

John: Outlined in detail on the wiki:
... WCAG 2.1:  Mobile has 4 new Guidelines and 8 or more new success 
... this is for people who want to go above WCAG 2.0

Scott (Chase): Use simple language!!!  Our accessibility success 
criteria must be accessible.

John: WCAG 2.1 could be WCAG 2.0 plus the mobile work and make it WCAG 
2.1.  When the Low Vision Task Force work is done, then we take their 
work plus WCAG 2.1 and make it WCAG 2.2.

Scott: I think that is a good way to go forward.

John: The other way to go forward would be to set a milestone date (e.g. 
December 31, 2016) and whatever is ready goes into 2.1 or the update for 
that year.

Scott: From a standpoint of govt agencies, a regular time frame is 
better, but every year is too often.  More requirements in fewer change 

Kathy: Mobile is here today.  If we don't put things out, we aren't 
giving guidance to the people who are asking for it.

Andrew: Please speak to your experience and your needs, not the theory 
of what "government agencies" need.

Katie: Is WCAG 3.0 the end result of all the Task Force work?

Jeanne: I am in favor of releasing by date.  We need to set up a 
structure for coordinating between the task forces and delivering 
results to WCAG WG.  The 2.x work needs to be done in the task forces, 
so that the WCAG WG can focus their efforts on WCAG 3.0 (or whatever it 
will be called).

Wilco: EU perspecitve: Any changes to WCAG 2.0 will be problematic for 
EU legislation in progress.  The EU legislation is in a hard fight.  A 
new WCAG 2.1  or WCAG 3.0 could delay the EU legislation even further.
... Segmentation of the Extensions is a problem, but it won't interfere 
with legislation

John: Thank you for coming.  Talk about it today and encourage people to 
go forward.

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:01:55 UTC