Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT

[removing some duplicate recipients to reduce clutter]

Hi Andrew, all,

I also think that the techniques are vital, and that we should not throw 
out the baby with the bathwater. I note two aspects to this:

#1. The format/presentation of the techniques

#2. The process for developing and vetting them

On #1, I think that WCAG WG and EOWG should definitely work with each 
other. I hope the QuickRef redesign project is a good example of such 
collaboration. Also, I think it may be worthwhile to consider if the 
techniques themselves need to be in W3C Technical Report (TR) format. 
Maybe we could have them in a different, more usable format, with an 
accompanying TR that merely lists the "approved" techniques. This way we 
could better address daily use and format, and still meet the need for a 
set of techniques that are vetted and sanctioned by WCAG WG.

On #2, I think we could think even broader than the existing working 
groups alone? Maybe the combination of GitHub and a Community Group, 
with clear leadership and promotion, could leverage the community to 
help pre-bake much of the techniques outside the working groups? That 
is, WCAG WG work would be more limited to approving mature techniques 
rather than developing them from scratch. It would also be more open for 
people to contribute individual bits and pieces, rather than to have to 
deal with the entire baggage of a working group to contribute.

Just some thoughts...

Best,
   Shadi


On 28.3.2016 18:04, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Jason,
> There seems to be a disconnect at we are at once saying that we need more people to work on techniques and that the right people are the ones in WCAG now.  I don’t agree that the only people that can work on techniques are on the WCAG WG – we get lots of thoughtful comments and suggestions from people not on the group, and that includes people in EO.  I think that one of the most valuable experiences for working on techniques is working on techniques, and the easiest way to get that experience is to start.
>
> I don’t think that techniques is something that just gets chucked over to wall to EO.  There may in fact be people who are on WCAG and are interested in developing extensions or 2.x or 3.0 updates, but who are also willing to work with another group (I’ll keep saying EO, just as an example).  It may be that people who work on WCAG during the development of the standard are needed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the techniques work needs to stay in WCAG – the WCAG members could move!
>
> Or not.  None of this is planned, or any more than a thought exercise at this point.  I haven’t talked with Josh or Michael about this, and I’m not sure what is the best way to proceed myself.  I have spent some time thinking about how WCAG can do its work best, and have talked with some others about different ideas, and that is what I’m continuing here.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, WAI International Program Office
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 06:24:52 UTC