WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10

for

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Feb 2, 2023 3:19PM

Thanks to Patrick Lauke for that great explanation.
As a colleague said a few years back, it takes years to write and update a standard.

Then it takes about a year or longer for it to be reviewed and approved for public publishing, which can involve the ISO formally publishing it.

And then it takes 1-2 years (or even longer) for governments to review the new standard and propose new legislation or updates that reference it.

And then, it takes a year or longer for our software tools and assistive technologies to retool to the new standard.

From my experience on the PDF/UA ISO committees (and even way back as a contributor to the original WCAG committee), it's about 5-7 years for the entire process to unfold. If all goes well! Look at how long it took the US to update Section 508 — from 1998 to 2017, 18 years!

Recommendation:
1. Meet at least the standard required by law, WCAG 2.0.
2. When appropriate, go beyond and meet WCAG 2.1. But that's voluntary. Nice to do, but not required by law yet — US law, that is.
3. Avoid "jumping the gun" and following standards that haven't yet been completed, like WCAG 2.2. As a member of a standards-writing committee, I'm amazed at how much changes while we develop new standards over a few years. And most software and assistive technologies won't retool to vapor-ware standards until they are carved in stone and finalized.

— — —
Bevi Chagnon | Designer, Accessibility Technician | <EMAIL REMOVED>
— — —
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting • training • development • design • sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
— — —
Latest blog-newsletter – Simple Guide to Writing Alt-Text

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:16 PM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10

On 02/02/2023 21:14, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 19:30, Artem Sergeevich Akopyan wrote:
>> why are we still on WCAG 2.1?
>
> 1) because 2.2 is still not finalised
> 2) even when it is, it will be a few more years until actual
> legislation references it (for fun, Section 508 in the US still
> references WCAG 2.0)
> 3) just like 2.1, 2.2 extends the previous spec ... so (with the
> exception of 4.1.1 which will be deprectated in 2.2) any SC currently
> in
> 2.1 will still be part of 2.2

Oh, and for completeness: WCAG 3 is currently only an idea, and nothing more...

--
Patrick H. Lauke