- From: Butler, Shari <shari.butler@pearson.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:19:38 -0600
- To: "McSorley, Jan" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
- Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExjWJ6LnmBLEpH1FdC9nmv+a_=d+6bD9A8T9y-VHCR1-d-vcA@mail.gmail.com>
agreed...add another to the count. Shari On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:14 PM, McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com> wrote: > +1 to AAA being ignored. > > > Jan McSorley > VP, Accessibility > Psychometrics and Testing Services > > 400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite E > Austin, TX 78753 > M - (512) 673-9569 > Twitter: @Jan_McSorley > Skype: jan.mcsorley > www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley > > Learn more at pearson.com > > [image: Pearson] > > *We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make information > technology fully accessible to people with disabilities. It can be done > ... it must be done ... it will be done!* > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:08 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > >> I had put a proposal that we add to the survey the following choice: "*include >> with the following to -do actions*" >> >> to-do actions can include: >> >> - *rework to make more testable or* >> - *rework to ensure backward compatibility * >> - *rework to adjust the scope* >> - etc >> >> It is common to have in a first working draft to-do items, and this >> enables us to both identify they have a problem and include them for >> review by the community. >> We could also have a section "the following have not been though our full >> viewing process". That way we will not have things to not be included at >> all. >> >> Note that every success criteria proposed by a task force has already >> been though at least one vetting process, if not more. The example Andrew >> gave of a ridiculous success criteria will not happen. >> >> All the best >> >> Lisa Seeman >> >> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> >> >> >> >> >> ---- On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:51:13 +0200 * White<jjwhite@ets.org >> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ---- >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 4:36 PM >> >> As this is will affect the Working Group internal process, we do want to >> understand what the WG members feel we should do. Please let us know! >> >> *[Jason] +1 to the proposed process. If the group decides to include a >> proposal that is considered almost ready but which nevertheless has issues >> on which comment is sought, these concerns should be raised in Notes for >> Reviewers as discussed in an earlier thread.* >> >> *My essential point is that I think proposals should undergo a period of >> review and refinement (with a serious attempt to address objections and >> achieve consensus) before being considered for integration into a working >> draft.* >> >> As I recall from the development of WCAG 2.0, decisions on what to >> include in a public draft and whether to note issues on which comment was >> requested were taken carefully by the working group at a meeting. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or >> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom >> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail >> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or >> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete >> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. >> >> Thank you for your compliance. >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> > -- Please excuse typos as I am a new user of speech to text software. Shari Butler, Ph.D. Director, Accessibility Research and Efficacy Pearson M: 512-284-3756 Learn more at pearson.com [image: Pearson]
Received on Friday, 10 February 2017 19:16:02 UTC