Andrew, my attitude is: Don’t keep doing what we already know doesn’t work. Two years ago WCAG WG, an ostensibly open group, wasn’t working, so my friends and I tried the exact opposite, and it worked. (WCAG Samurai Errata might attract a quibble or two, but they’re quite solid.)
Secret captioning “standardization”? bodies like CAB and WGBH haven’t worked before, so I advocate open standardization bodies. Or, rather, just one.
In between you find things like the Ontario government’s information/communications accessibility panel, which could barely manage to publish its meeting minutes and never published its draft specs. Secret? Open? Or just not quite competent enough to choose between the two?
Now, if there were another field where _every_ attempt was secret and it _always_ worked, I wouldn’t complain. Ditto if every attempt were open. I do not actually always favour open standards. _Published_ standards, yes, but not necessarily open. Most of the time they’re better, of course, but one does not wish to fall prey to ideology.
I assume it is axiomatic that “working”? in this context means we have something approaching 100% accessibility, with good fonts and readability, and adequate results from user testing. Nu?