Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

I'm fine with a long list at the end of Proposed SCs that have not been
vetted... but not crazy about a long list of unvetted SCs in the middle of
proposed ones...

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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

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 Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com
> wrote:

> +1 to Alistair’s points here…..FPWD doesn’t need to be empty and clean, it
> needs to share what we are looking at, to illicit feedback and comments
>
>
>
> ​​​​​** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *@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:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 4, 2017 9:59 AM
> *To:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Cc:* 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> > The Working Group has not made any decision that it will include all of
> the SC proposals in the FPWD and then cull or change them in response to
> feedback. This is one possible approach, with the other being to build up
> the FPWD with what the WG agrees
>
>
>
> I don’t feel strongly either way, but I had *assumed* (and I think others
> have) that we would start with everything and *whittle down* to what is
> agreed.
>
>
>
> The downside to the whittle-down approach is that it will appear far
> messier to start with.
>
>
>
> The downside to adding new SCs to later drafts is that reviewers are
> surprised by new things. I think a lot of people will assume that a later
> draft would be a revised version of what was in the FPWD, not include new
> things.
>
>
>
> If we do add new SCs to later drafts (for 2.1), we need to slap on a ‘big
> red banner’ (or equivalent) saying that is the case, and perhaps list the
> potential SCs at the bottom (as Katie suggested) or separately.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I favor a document that we build up as a high-quality work-product at
> every point in time
>
>
>
> I think that is a good goal, but I’m not sure how feasible it is during
> the drafts stage? There is a sort of n+1 problem [1] in that each change
> ripples out to affect other SCs.
>
>
>
> For example, I thought the metadata on hover SC [2] was pretty
> straightforward: it doesn’t appear to affect other SCs. However, ‘goetsu’
> pointed out on github that using title is a technique for 4 other SCs,
> which would then be banned by this SC. Perhaps the right call is to have
> the new SC and remove the other techniques, perhaps not. My point is that
> you need to know what is “in”, then iron out the ripples.
>
>
>
> If we have (say) 20 new SCs in the FPWD, then we will get a lot of
> feedback about the SCs, and the overlaps / impacts of the new ones.
>
>
>
> If the next draft has 30, we are updating the SCs, the impacts, and the
> new SCs and new impacts which may overlap with the old impacts. We could
> flip-flop on certain points because having a new SC changes the landscape…
> I can see that adding a lot of overhead at each draft.
>
>
>
> If we have 60 new SCs in the FPWD (and highlight that we are whittling
> down), then the first round will be painful, but at each round it gets
> easier and easier.
>
>
>
> This is all a bit theoretical to me though, is it possible to ask someone
> heavily involved in the first WCAG 2.0 round their advice about this?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> 1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/97197/what-is-the-n1-selects-issue
>
> 2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/75
>