Proposed Modular Approach to WCAG 3

[rachaelbradley]

The AG has decided to continue building onto the work to date on WCAG 3. We have also begun documenting risks that we should monitor and work to mitigate (lower the risk).

Based on the GitHub conversation on publication approaches and last week's meeting, chairs propose the following way forward for discussion at our next meeting:

Build WCAG 3 out in groups of related guideline content. For example, all keyboard-related guidance or all motion-related guidance might be one group.

When ready, these parts of the draft would be copied from the draft as "modules" and would be initially released as informative documents. They would include what will be the normative text (e.g. Outcomes), but as a document it would be informative. The WCAG 3 draft would include all the guidance, and also incorporate the conformance information as it is developed.

The overall structure would be:

• WCAG 3 as a REC Track document - building on and developing the existing WCAG 3 Working Draft
• Related and separate Informative documents

A ‘module’ would be a grouping of:

• Outcomes on the theme of the module
• Informative materials related to those outcomes

Questions for consideration:

• Publishing even informative documents takes time and energy. What value is added by publishing notes separate from and before the recommendation? Is that value worth the effort?
• Many in the group assume that regulators will not adopt the informative documents before the Recommendation is complete. Is there any evidence to counter this opinion?
• What are the potential benefits and risks with this approach?

If you agree with this proposed modular approach please give a thumbs up. If you disagree with it, please give a thumbs down and note in comments what changes you would make.

Please note this question centers on how we best to move forward from the existing WCAG 3 draft. It is not reopening the question of whether we start from WCAG 2 or WCAG 3.

[GreggVan]

Thumbs up
and In answer to one question -- "would regulatory bodies adopt informative docs before the formal REC"
The answer is maybe - but that might not be good if they did.

• If they do - it will constrain the WCAG working group from updating those provisions as we move to REC since they will be frozen in other standard(s).
• If they do, since it is informative, we could expect that some working groups might 'fix' them with their thoughts - leading to lack harmonization.
• Since it is not a REC - they cannot quote it (by their own rules they can only cite normative documents) and W3C has copyright rights --so they there is good chance they would rewrite them in their own words - again impacting harmonization (why comment to WCAG wg and wait and hope fixes appear later when they can just fix them directly in their document. )

So I think that the real value of the modules approach will be the advice they provide and the preview of what is to come - for those who want to add effort and also try out the new provisions before they are frozen in a REC.

[rscano]

I agree with @GreggVan about possibility of issues in adopt "hybrid" spec inside national, european, etc. laws.

We should think an opportunity to have specific modular structure that are also REC, normative, and not informative.

In simple words, the multipart norm scheme that is used in standards. i.e. ISO 9241-xx where xx is a specific part but all is inside the field "Ergonomics of human-system interaction".

[alastc]

(Chair hat off) The work is likely to proceed in a similar way whether or not we produce modules. I.e. we pick a group of outcomes and work those through, then move onto the next group.

The key thing for me is: Would publishing modules of guidance be significantly different from publishing a draft containing the same guidance?

Would it enable regulators to pick up something to supplement WCAG 2.2? E.g. a VR module?

If so, it seems worth the effort to separate that guidance and publish it separately.
However, if it is not picked up officially, it doesn't seem worth it. People who are forward-looking and want to gather the latest guidance informally can use the WCAG 3 draft.

One caveat: There might be a difference between a group of outcomes that it makes sense to work on (e.g. keyboard and input device outcomes), and one that is externally desired (e.g. VR). Technology groupings are unlikely to be suitable as a set of things to work on, as they will be a mix of categories. As WCAG 3 is aiming to work across technologies, the outcomes for any particular technology will be spread across the whole.

[rachaelbradley]

(chair hat off) Having considered this for a while this week, I would prefer work in modules but not lose the time to publish them separately from WCAG 3. I haven't seen a convincing argument that the benefit of the separate document would outweigh the work. If we want to encourage early experimentation and adoption we can mark the content as mature when it is ready to indicate it won't change much.