RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

It might be better to give us specific choices, so we can say A B or C…

 

But in place of that, my vote:

*         I don’t care if it is after CSUN

*         I think it needs as many SC as possible – and identify that we need feedback by researchers, users and experts in those fields

*         If we have to do it before CSUN, we need to identify that it includes not only non-consensus items – but that we were unable to get a good look at all the SC, because of time constraints (which will probably sound ridiculous)

 

​​​​​* 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: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:34 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
Importance: High

 

AGWG’ers,

We have heard an increased number of requests that we ensure the WCAG 2.1 FPWD will be released before CSUN in order to keep in line with the Charter, which specified a February date. Concerns cited include that we will open the group to criticism if we miss the deadline (the counter-concern is that the group would be open to criticism if the SC are perceived to be poorly-vetted) and that we really need additional outside feedback on many items and we won’t get that until we have a public review draft.

 

Our feeling is that there are three factors under consideration, and that we can only satisfy two of these:

1. Deliver the FPWD on time
2. Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG
3. Deliver the FPWD with a large number of the proposed SC

The Chairs and Michael feel like we need to consider a compromise position. 

 

We are asking the group to provide quick feedback on the question of whether people would approve the incorporation of a selection of SC from each TF into a FPWD draft provided that we mark the SC with a note that indicates that the SC is in a proposal stage and has not reached WG consensus, but that we would welcome feedback on the SC to help the group refine them further.

 

If this were to happen, the chairs would prepare a review draft with ~8 new SC from each TF, and then we would have a survey sent out tomorrow that would provide a way for WG members to provide feedback on each SC, and assuming that there aren’t major objections (due to a SC not meeting the SC requirements in a profound and unresolvable way) then we would include each SC in the draft.

 

This is a change, and it will require compromise for everyone. This requires that the group members are willing to put out a draft that explicitly states that it includes non-consensus items.

 

What do people think? If we are going to do this we will need to move quickly.

 

Thanks,

AWK

 

Andrew Kirkpatrick

Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

Adobe 

 

akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 

http://twitter.com/awkawk