Adding a requirement - backwards compatibility (not)

[alastc]

Closes #569

[alastc]

Gregg comments:

1. If you want it to be adopted, without backwards compatibility, if my pages no longer conform next week my motivation goes. Generally you'd do a time-stamped 'pages met conformance at this time'.
2. If you get things in, but are later taken out, it maybe easier to put them in in the first place, but it undermines the standard politically. Once people have something, it's hard to take it away. Can get accused of duplicity if the future ones are less accessible than the past.

The other side is that tightening can also cause issues, thought probabaly not as much of an issue.
Based on historic problems (with things not getting in), could cause people to work on particular issues and get lots of things in.

Perhaps it should not be an absolute, but allow for a cautious approach to (incompatible) updates, and we should be guided by the end-accessibility.

Using outcomes may get around technology update issues.

Could cause the same discussions to be repeated ad-infinitum.

Jeanne commented:

• Selling to regulators works towards a short-term view. We started working on WCAG 3 based on backwards compatibility issues. Changes are needed, particular definitions of web-page.
• If WCAG3 has the same difficulty of updates, that's a mistake. Agree it should be cautious, but not have it as a requirement.
• Regarding disability groups, we always have to be able to add more groups / technologies. Need to change, cautiously.

Wilco:

• Felt too explicit. Prefer a more generic description of WCAG 3 being updated.

Gregg:

• Should be as compatible (with 2) as can be, but can't be a requirement to be backwards compatible.
• Would need to track decisions carefully to prevent repeating the same discussions again & again.
• Listening to other comments, perhaps we should treat it like 'precedent' in the legal system, where once something is decided you don't keep changing that. It can be changed with enough momentum, new information, and consensus to do so.

Shadi:

• Wording wise, perhaps it could be "WCAG 3 is not bound by...". make it less dramatic.

[alastc]

PR updated based on previous feedback, re-wording and moving into the "Opportunities for WCAG 3.0" section, so it is not a requirement any more.