Re: draft text for charter

"I don't think we should be limiting ourselves to coordinating with WCAG.
I would prefer  "will coordinate with the WCAG Working Group, as well as
any other  working groups as needed, to integrate ..."

Avneesh: This is just one example.
Ivan has repeated this line for ARIA, WAI etc.
So, it is at multiple places in charter for multiple groups.

With regards
Avneesh
-----Original Message----- 
From: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 23:03
To: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter

Works for me as wll.  How about this?


New text for scope statement:

The Working Group will identify any accessibility requirements for its 
deliverables betond previously existing WCAG, UAAG, and other requirements 
of the W3C. These will be identified as conformance requirements in the 
Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may 
be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.

And following is the text in coordination section:

The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with Working Groups 
focusing on accessibility to integrate accessibility requirements created as 
part of its recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. 
One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage 
diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.

Deborah

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Charles LaPierre wrote:

> I like Ivan’s idea of 'wg-s concerned with accessibility’ such as ARIA, 
> WAI, WCAG, so yeah works for me.
> Thanks
> EOM
>
> Charles LaPierre
> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
> Skype: charles_lapierre
> Phone: 650-600-3301
>
>
>
>       On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
>       On 27 Feb 2017, at 17:47, deborah.kaplan 
> <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net> wrote:
>
>       I am fine with this text. It's longer than I thought Ivan wanted it 
> to
>       be,  but if he thinks it's aan acceptable length I think it's 
> relatively
>       clear while also being explicit  about the fact that we will 
> incorporate
>       accessibility requirements in any recommendation-track 
> deliverables,,
>       and the fact that we will be coordinating with other groups.
>
>
>
> Well… it is a little bit too long, compared to the rest of the charter. 
> That, by itself, may be ok, however (if I play devil's advocate, the 
> following text:
>
> [[
> The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the
> Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables  will
> contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of
> readers with different needs and capabilities.
> ]]
>
> may be considered to be superfluous in the charter. The reason is that 
> this is a requirement for any W3C recommendation, mainly when talking 
> about user-facing specifications like this. In
> other words, this does not add anything to what is already a default 
> requirement, does it?
>
> For me, the important point is:
>
> [[
> ...additional extended requirements will be
> identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative
> specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more
> stringent accessibility requirements.
> ]]
>
> because it shows that we _may_ have extra requirements and we intend to 
> put these into the spec as well. For me, _that_ is the important point...
>
>
>
>       My only issue  is the following:
>
>       "The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with the WCAG 
> Working
>       Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its
>       recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology."
>
>       I don't think we should be limiting ourselves to coordinating with 
> WCAG.
>       I would prefer  "will coordinate with the WCAG Working Group, as 
> well as
>       any other  working groups as needed, to integrate …"
>
>
> This may be vague, what about "wg-s concerned with accessibility', or 
> something like that?
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>       Deborah
>

Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 17:50:04 UTC