W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: Rapid Response Team

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:57:09 -0700
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5076E68FCD2E91428C2479984A81E1147B5700CB36@NAMBX01.corp.adobe.com>
My gut is that we don't want to be the gatekeepers for this information.  We've written the document, if it isn't clear, than Education and Outreach is the group to respond to questions or provide resources to help explain - isn't that the EO role? If EO needs WCAG WG comment, they can ask us for it.

I'd say that the WCAG WG shouldn't even be receiving the emails with questions like this, and if we do they should be immediately routed to EO.


Andrew Kirkpatrick

Senior Product Manager, Accessibility

Adobe Systems


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:56 AM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Rapid Response Team

Hi WG members,

We are getting a number of emails in on the public comment list asking for clarification on this or that thing regarding WCAG.

These seem to fall into three general categories:

1) people wanting advice on how to design something on their web site (or wanting pages evaluated).
2) people wondering if some piece of their site conforms.  (Does this pass SC xxxx?)
3) people asking a question about a concept and if it satisfies a technique or SC
4) people asking questions about wording in one of the documents.

For #1 and #2 we are generally asking them to talk to professionals in the field.

 -  for questions that uncover places where we need to be clearer in the wording in our documents - or add wording

 - And for new techniques or approaches that may meet our SC but we do not have documented

We want to be able to respond as we can and add to our documentation.

Sometimes we need to take something to the group and discuss.  But often we know the answer even if it isn't clear in our documentation.

For this latter group - we would like to turn the questions around sooner than putting them through the whole group review process (log them in, have them wait til turn comes up, prepare response, put on schedule for discussion at WG meeting etc.)

The idea is to have a Rapid Response Team  that would pre-screen the items coming in.  Separate out the Type #1 and #2 and send a note referring them off to someplace (that can handle their questions on a more timely basis).

Then id which #3 or #4 items are straightforward enough that an answer can be just drafted and sent back to the person - and also either added in the Understanding doc or listed in a CaseBook (a kind of technical FAQ).    The WG can review these later to catch any errors but they can be done as a block.

The #3 and #4 items needed WG review would be logged in, a note sent to the commenter telling them they are queued up and will be answered in turn,  and then the comment go through the longer process.

So now we need volunteers for the Rapid Response Team.   (if we get enough volunteers we will rotate members to spread the load)

remember this team will just    1) sort   2) answer quick easy ones and 3) pass the rest on for logging or sending of referral letters.


Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 15:57:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:05 UTC