Re[2]: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT

>hmmm... the site seems to be down... perhaps that's the universe 
>telling him not to be such a meanie :)
LOL!

>
>
>On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Laura Carlson 
><laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Hi David and all,
>>
>>fyi:
>>
>>Is WCAG too long?
>>By Karl Groves.
>>http://www.karlgroves.com/2016/03/28/is-wcag-too-long/
>>
>>Kindest Regards,
>>Laura
>>
>>On 3/26/16, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > Hi All
>> >
>> > CSUN has finished. I enjoyed following it on Twitter, mostly. There 
>>was a
>> > Tweet from a talk that went out:
>> >
>> >  "WCAG is about 1/3 of a mile long, when printed, I want to bungee 
>>jump off
>> > WCAG".
>> >
>> > Whether or not it was an accurate quote, I think it is a perception 
>>worth
>> > exploring. Its' a familiar criticism of WCAG, that it is "2000 pages 
>>long"
>> > Attempts to try to say "no it's 36 pages printed with LOTS of help" 
>>seems
>> > to be drowned out.
>> >
>> > Personally, I'd like to explore this perception that "WCAG is too 
>>long"
>> > which I've heard for years, and offer a way forward on WCAG.NEXT 
>>and/or the
>> > extensions.
>> >
>> > In the early days of WCAG2 and WCAG1, our committee and a small 
>>group of
>> > peripheral colleagues were the only ones who knew how to make the 
>>web
>> > accessible so it was necessary to document techniques along with the
>> > standards. Today, things are different:
>> >
>> > - We have a robust industry of accessibility professionals writing 
>>books,
>> > blogs, tutorials, and making a good living doing so.
>> > - We have a robust EO group working along side us providing 
>>wonderful
>> > guidance on WCAG to the world.
>> > - We have orgs like the Canada Gov. saying developers can ONLY use 
>>OUR
>> > techniques to meet WCAG, which limits developers
>> > - We have limited internal resources on our committee because we are 
>>busy
>> > with our careers helping people meet WCAG, and don't have time for
>> > techniques. (and feeding a baby in my case).
>> >
>> > Given this change in context, I think it is worth considering a new 
>>way
>> > forward for our future work. So here it is.
>> >
>> > I think we should get out of the techniques business.
>> >
>> > There I said it.
>> >
>> > We can write Success criteria, Guidelines, principles, and offer a 
>>(short)
>> > Understanding document for each new Success Criteria to help folks
>> > understand it. We may include in the Understanding a couple of 
>>examples,
>> > and of course we have to prove that each SC can be met. But lets 
>>stop
>> > writing Techniques, and let the world know we don't do that. We are 
>>a
>> > standards group. Here's the advantages:
>> >
>> > Then when we are done, people won't be able to say "It's too long".
>> >
>>
>>
>>--
>>Laura L. Carlson
>>
>