WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Léonie Watson
Date: Aug 24, 2015 3:10AM

> From: Laura Carlson [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: 21 August 2015 14:44
> Those who are serious about accessibility would require the extensions.

That's likely, yes. It's the people that don't take accessibility as seriously that are likely to seize on the "optional" status of the extensions though. Given that the extensions are mostly focused on requirements for specific user groups, I'm just not comfortable with the notion they might be considered optional.

>
> > 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.
[...]

> 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.

We're in agreement then. I perhaps didn't make my distinction between a standard, and a law or policy that references it, clear enough. Per my comment above, I think the W3C should create standards that equip designers and developers with the best possible information. I don't believe they should be involved in the law or policy making processes that may (or may not) choose to reference those standards though.

>
> >> 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.
>

My understanding is that W3C thinks extensions would be quicker to create than WCAG 2.1. My theory is that WCAG 2.1 could be published in whatever amount of time it takes to complete the extensions - because I'm only suggesting a difference in the way the new requirements are packaged, not a change to the amount of work to be done.

The extension timeline does raise another question though. It is possible the WCAG WG will not exist by the time the cognitive extension is finished. The draft WCAG charter (1] currently says:

"The UAAG and ATAG Working Group charters are expected to expire in one year. A new Working Group that addresses uses cases, user needs, and guidelines
for content, user agents, and authoring tools may be chartered to take the place of all three groups, in which case the WCAG Working Group would end its
charter early."

This suggests that whatever happens, neither the extensions or WCAG 2.1 would be published by the WCAG WG. Either could be done under the auspices of this new WG though.

Which brings us back to the original question... Should the WCAG charter imply that accessibility for certain user groups is optional?


Léonie.

--
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson