- From: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:51:26 -0400
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl>, ARIA Working Group Admin <public-aria-admin@w3.org>
I thought someone else did mention it during the call. That said, we're having this conversation because I said something in an off-handed comment to Michiel in IRC when he pinged me in the middle of my doing totally different things. And that said, the password role seems to be consuming far more time and energy from all of us than is healthy. ;) If everyone else is fine with the warning, so am I. --joanie On 06/03/2016 11:40 AM, Michael Cooper wrote: > Making it a more normative statement would be a substantive change that > is not part of the current CfC. If the group wanted to do that, we'd > have to let this CfC fail and issue a new one, which would introduce a > delay. It would have been really helpful for a suggestion like that to > be made in the teleconference when we were reviewing it so we could get > a sense of whether the group might support or prefer that, or would > prefer the current proposal. > > My own sense is that, based on our current knowledge, a warning as > proposed is the best balance. If we get feedback on the upcoming draft > that makes a normative statement seem supported, we could add it later. > > But if you want to propose a more normative statement, please do so to > the main WG list, and copy or put a pointer on this thread on the admin > list, since it crosses the line from "friendly amendment" to "technical > change proposed"for the resolution. I'll make my above technical > contribution to that thread if needed. > > Michael > > > On 03/06/2016 10:55 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: >> Hi John. >> >> I mainly am questioning if we want it to be a warning, rather than a >> more normative statement. Granted the problem with a normative statement >> is that it's hard to test that the authors have done it. >> >> --joanie >> >> On 06/03/2016 09:18 AM, John Foliot wrote: >>> Hi Michiel, >>> >>> Thanks. To echo Michael, if there are any proposed edits to the current >>> draft text, let's see them now so that the group can make a final >>> decision - my sense yesterday on the call was that most folks were happy >>> with what we had, but if we need to fine-tune it let's do so before the >>> weekend (if possible), as this CfC closes in 5 days. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> JF >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl >>> <mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>> wrote: >>> >>> John, >>> >>> It was actually Joanie that said she wanted to make some edits >>> yesterday on IRC. I have copied her in. I have asked our internal >>> language specialist to have a look at it too. >>> >>> —Michiel >>> >>>> On 03 Jun 2016, at 01:57, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com >>>> <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 to Michael. >>>> >>>> This is the current proposed draft. If you believe it can be >>>> improved, I for one welcome the submission and am amiable to >>>> consider it. What were you thinking Michiel? >>>> >>>> My goal is to get it as good as we can without impeding progress. >>>> >>>> JF >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org >>>> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Word smithing is often editorial, but not always. If you see a >>>> potential need for it, it would be helpful to make your >>>> suggestion now so people can consider it as they review this >>>> CfC and can decide if they want to comment in favor or against >>>> it. If people do not comment or appear to strongly favor one >>>> or the other, and it seems clearly editorial, then we can >>>> leave it to chair / editors to decide what to do with it when >>>> ratifiying the CfC. >>>> >>>> Because it's potentially technical, I suggest word-smithing be >>>> copied to the main WG list, not just the admin list. >>>> >>>> (My goal here is to suggest a way for "friendly amendments" to >>>> be considered without requiring a new consensus call or >>>> invalidating the original one if the amendment draws concern >>>> or proves not editorial.) >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02/06/2016 6:25 PM, Michiel Bijl wrote: >>>>> +1 to this warning. It might need some word smithing, but that would be editorial no? >>>>> >>>>> —Michiel >>>>> >>>>>> On 02 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> >>>>>> <mailto:cooper@w3.org> wrote: This is a Call for Consensus >>>>>> (CfC) to the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) >>>>>> Working Group regarding the following resolution of the ARIA >>>>>> Working group: Accept John's suggested warning text for the >>>>>> password role Background This was approved by the >>>>>> participants of the 2 June 2016 teleconference, and further >>>>>> context is available in the minutes: >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04 <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04> >>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04>If >>>>>> this CfC is accepted, the following pull request will be >>>>>> merged: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396 <https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396> >>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396> >>>>>> Action >>>>>> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though messages of support are certainly welcome. >>>>>> If you object to this proposal, or have comments concerning it, please respond by replying on list to this message no later than 23:59 (midnight) Boston Time, Wednesday, 8 June 2016. For objections only, please copy the main aria@w3.org <mailto:aria@w3.org> <mailto:aria@w3.org> <mailto:aria@w3.org> list to allow technical discussion of the objection to happen there. >>>>>> Process >>>>>> This CfC is conducted per the ARIA WG decision policy: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy <https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy> >>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy>I am issuing >>>>>> this CfC as acting chair, but Rich will record the formal >>>>>> ratification if passed. Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Foliot >>>> Principal Accessibility Consultant >>>> Deque Systems Inc. >>>> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> >>>> >>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Foliot >>>> Principal Accessibility Consultant >>>> Deque Systems Inc. >>>> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> >>>> >>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> John Foliot >>> Principal Accessibility Consultant >>> Deque Systems Inc. >>> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> >>> >>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >> >
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 15:52:04 UTC