RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

Leonie,

On the calls we have been discussing using the FPWD to draw on the expertise and research of people out in the field to help us address some of the SC that we do not yet have adequate test techniques and at least one implementation technique for - which includes several of the proposed COGA SC. 

We were considering adding them to the bottom of the draft in a section called 'At Risk SC' where we would identify the SC that we would like to include if possible - but do not yet meet our criteria for getting into WCAG 2.1. We hope to gain insight and suggestion for helping us with ideas for test and technology specific techniques to enable us to move them out of the 'At Risk' category. Therefore the SC content would not be 100% dependent on the knowledge-in-the-room (as it were), and open it up to others who might already be working on these things or just have some great ideas.

If we don’t get enough feedback to help us, at least we will have tried to include as many SC as possible by laying the ideas for all to contribute to.

A FPWD, even if it is the first thing put out in years - does not have to be perfect. It  is meant to give a sense as to where we are, and what we are thinking, and to ask for feedback on that.

​​​​​* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

On 03/01/2017 19:17, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
> Then *how* are we going to expect getting feedback and ideas on 
> testing and techniques on those items that might be ‘At Risk’?

What do you mean by at risk?

Léonie.


--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem




>
>
>
> ​​​​​** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****ryladog@gmail.com*
> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office:
> 703-371-5545 **|****@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> 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
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 20:09:18 UTC