RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

However, one way to get them ‘ready’ is to ask for feedback on those that need input to improve them…..:-)

 

Chicken/egg…:)

 

​​​​​* 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: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; tink@tink.uk; 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

 

I agree with Leonie's suggestion that we include the new SCs that are ready and add others later.

 

I also wasn't sure what "at risk" meant, so thanks for the clarification. Too late, I suppose, to change it to something more user-friendly, like "Under Consideration" or "To Be Decided".

 

Mike

 

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:12 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > wrote:

 

See “at risk” in 6.4.1 of the process document: http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr

Items that are marked “at risk” in a CR document can be removed in the PR document without returning to CR.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 
http://twitter.com/awkawk








On 1/3/17, 14:55, "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk <mailto:tink@tink.uk> > wrote:

>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> *
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca> ]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:42 PM
>> *To:* Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk <mailto:tink@tink.uk> >
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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>  <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> 
>> <mailto: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 <http://tink.uk/> > Carpe diem
>>
>>
>>
>