RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

Then *how* are we going to expect getting feedback and ideas on testing and techniques on those items that might be ‘At Risk’?

 

​​​​​* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.

 

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:42 PM
To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

 

>>The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD as/when.

 

 

​That makes sense to me.

 




Cheers,
David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>  


twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> 

 <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> GitHub

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> 

  

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

 

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> 

 

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk <mailto:tink@tink.uk> > wrote:

On 03/01/2017 18:06, David MacDonald wrote:

but I'm concerned that the world is watching for WCAG next, and has been
waiting over 8 years. Is this the first thing we want to release to
these stakeholders in 8 years?


No.


I think we may want to postpone our release date for the FPWD, until we
can parse these, figure out how we are going to organize them and make
some preliminary vetting.


The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD as/when.

Please don't consider delaying the timeline. Eight years is far too long as it is - let's not make it worse.

Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk>  Carpe diem