1 of 13

WCAG 3.0 �Making Decisions and Moving Work Forward

1

2 of 13

Agenda

W3C overarching process
Steps in publication process
Consensus
Feedback & References

2

Please note: In this slide deck “working group” is used to mean the joint AGWG and Silver taskforce before and after they merge.

3 of 13

Problem to solve

Tension between:

Wanting to provide to the public solid drafts on which we have consensus.

��Not taking 20 years to get to the recommendation stage

3

4 of 13

W3C overarching process

4

5 of 13

Reviews

5

Advisory Committee review

Working Draft

Working Group review

Public review

Rec

Description: Working draft is on the left, the recommendation is on the right. In between there are three review types: The working group review, the public review, and the advisory committee review. There are arrows showing movement from working-draft to recommendation, but at each review stage the issues/feedback goes back to the working draft.

These are the reviews iteration points I want to focus on.

Everything has to be reviewed by the AC, and we should aim for this to be once. I.e. everything possible issue we know of is resolved before that point. We have had objections at this stage from browser-makers and accessibility companies.�
Everything has to go to public review. For other W3C specs this may not be a big part of the process because only browser-makers really care about their spec. However, in our work we have more stakeholders, and more engaged stakeholders.�We want this feedback as much as possible.�
If something comes up from a working group review, it is very likely to come up (with greater volume) from a public review. We should acknowledge that the perspectives of the WG are a sub-set of the public, e.g. we tend to have more testers, and few people directly from a regulatory perspective.�
It is vital that the WG represents various stakeholder points of view as early as possible, both for the public and W3C membership.

This is a simplification, we can break things up and get a public (wide, or ‘wider’) review of a particular piece without putting the whole thing up for review..

6 of 13

Working drafts

From the W3C process doc:

“Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the Working Group with respect to their content, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology.”
“A Working Draft is suitable for gathering wide review prior to advancing to the next stage of maturity.”

We could decide as a group that working drafts require consensus, but we don’t have to.

6

7 of 13

Proposal: Marking Content Maturity by Levels

Placeholder: We know we need content but do not yet know what it should look like

Likelihood to change: Definite
Goals of this level: Subgroup identifies needs and possible directions
Requirements to get to this level: No formal decision; Editor adds placeholder based on subgroup recommendation

Exploratory: We are exploring one or more possible directions for this content

Likelihood to change: Very likely
Goals of this level: Document direction(s)
Requirements to get to this level: No formal decision; Editor adds content based on subgroup recommendation

Maturing: AG has high confidence in the direction, and some confidence in the details

Likelihood to change: Likely
Goals of this level: Work out details and address open questions
Requirements to get to this level: AG agreement (meeting/survey)

Mature: AG has high confidence in the direction, and moderate confidence in the details

Likelihood to change: Details may change, overall direction unlikely to change
Goals of this level: Get wide stakeholder feedback
Requirements to get to this level: AG agreement (meeting/survey)

Stable: Content is believed to be ready to become a W3C Recommendation

Likelihood to change: Unlikely to change
Goals of this level: Explore
Requirements to get to this level: AG Consensus and CFC

7

8 of 13

Example

6 Conformance

6.1 Conformance Levels (Exploratory)

6.1.1 Bronze (Exploratory)

6.1.2 Silver (Exploratory)

6.1.3 Gold (Exploratory)

6.2 Conforming alternate version (Placeholder)

6.3 Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies (Placeholder)

6.4 Defining conformance scope (Exploratory)

6.5 Conformance requirements (Exploratory)

6.6 Conformance claims (Maturing)

6.6.1 Required components of a conformance claim (Maturing)

6.6.2 Example conformance claim (Stable)

8

Note: This is for example only, it does not reflect decisions of levels by the working group

✓

9 of 13

Content moving through drafts

9

Wikis

Google Docs

Pull Requests

Placeholder

Exploratory

Maturing

Mature

Stable

Editor’s draft marked by levels

Placeholder
Exploratory
Maturing
Mature
Stable

Snapshot

Working draft marked by levels

Placeholder
Maturing
Mature
Stable

10 of 13

Consensus (From AG Decision Policy)

The Working Group strives to reach consensus via unanimous agreement. However, at times unanimity is not possible.

Consensus is not a vote.
Critical that all participants have the opportunity to express their views for consideration so that all relevant information can be used in arriving at the conclusion.
Consensus indicates that a substantial number of individuals in the group support a proposal
The exact number of participants supporting a Call for Consensus compared to objections is not the only factor in the decision.
Consensus means working through objections until they are resolved either through amending the decision or in rare cases overriding the objection as laid out in Managing Dissent.

10

In ‘managing dissent:

In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair may record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal Objection) so that the group can make progress (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on.

Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of which participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations and weigh their input accordingly.

11 of 13

Objections

Objections must have a clear rationale based on:

the technical merit or
with reference to the agreed scope of the work.

…[in] a Call for Consensus, objections should not be raised unless:

the individual strongly believes the decision is the wrong one in spite of discussion, and
the individual cannot "live with" the decision.

Compromise on points that the individual considers suboptimal but can "live with" is an essential part of group decisions that must meet various requirements.

11

12 of 13

Next Steps

Please send concerns with this approach to group-ag-plan@w3.org
Chairs will bring a revised approach with a sample document back to the group for survey
Once we reach consensus on the approach, we will CFC the plan

12

13 of 13

Feedback and References

Comments: group-ag-plan@w3.org
Follow W3C and AG Process to reach consensus

Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

13