WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: (off list)WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 125, Issue 19

for

From: Laura Carlson
Date: Aug 21, 2015 7:43AM

Hi Leonie,

On 8/20/15, Léonie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
>> One thing to remember is that nothing is stopping entities, including
>> legal
>> entities from mandating WCAG 2.0 plus an extensions as soon as said
>> extension is available.
>
> Good point. That could happen of course. In the scheme of things I'm not too
> worried about legislation though. I am worried that if these extensions are
> optional, it sends out the message that accessibility for those user groups
> is optional.

Those who are serious about accessibility would require the extensions.

>> You will note that in section 3.2 "Dependencies & Liaisons" of the draft
>> charter the following groups are listed:
>>
>> * U.S. Access Board
>> * European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
>> * European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
>> * European Commission
>> * RERC for the Advancement of Cognitive Technologies
>> * RERC on Universal Interface and Information Technology Access
>
> I think that W3C should leave the matter of law and policy to the entities
> responsible for those things. Our responsibility is to create standards that
> equip designers and developers with the best possible information, not to
> harmonise those standards into legislation.

From my perspective it a matter of legal entities who have been and
are currently referencing WCAG 2.0 [1].

In addition many entities especially smaller companies and
organizations do not have the accessibility expertise to write their
own accessibility standard. My view is the W3C taking the lead in
writing accessibility standards is most welcome. Every company or
organization in every country shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
For instance WCAG 2.0 serves as the standard for the University of
Minnesota.

>> From what I have gathered going the extension route is expected to be
>> faster than a WCAG 2.1 or 3.0.
>
> I think that is the assumption, yes. I don't think it needs to be the case
> though.

Here is a real example: the Cognitive Task Force Chair, began
recruiting members in July 2013. Since then that Task Force has been
doing critical research and development (R&D) work [2]. For the "WCAG
Cognitive Extension" and the "Understanding WCAG Cognitive Extension"
the charter states:

* First Working Draft: November 2015
* Candidate Recommendation: October 2017
* Proposed Recommendation: January 2018
* Recommendation: April 2018

I haven't seen a timeline for the Low Vision TF. But if we apply that
type of time allocation, with recruiting members beginning August 2015
and then commencing R&D, it seems milestones would map out to:

* First Working Draft: December 2017
* Candidate Recommendation: November 2019
* Proposed Recommendation: February 2020
* Recommendation: May 2020

The end date of the draft charter is July 31, 2018. Realistically, I
don't know how Low Vision First Working Drafts could be mandated in a
WCAG 2.1 ending on that same date, as those documents wouldn't be
finalized recommendations for another 2 years.

So the question is how would you speed up the process? Leonie, will
you join the task force to help?

Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/settlements/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/#work

--
Laura L. Carlson