Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

Hi all,

I'd like to make a friendly suggestion to start new threads. This has 
gone from a vote against WCAG 2.1, to inaccessible tools, to how to 
categorise works in progress.

Thanks

Josh

> David MacDonald <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>
> 20 February 2017 at 21:12
> Friendly amendment to Mark's suggestion
>
> <h2>Incomplete Candidate Success Criteria</h2>
>
> <p>The following are success criteria proposals by the task forces 
> that have been identified to address important accessibility barriers 
> on the web. However, they have not yet met one or more of the <a 
> href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria 
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>>requirements for 
> a success criteria. </a> We are seeking feedback on the proposals to 
> determine whether or how they can meet the all the requirements, such 
> as being testable, implementable, apply to all content, and apply 
> across all technologies (or how to manage exceptions).  In addition, 
> review from the perspective of internationalization for proposals 
> dealing with language and symbology is requested.
>
>
> 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>
>
>
> Hakkinen, Mark T <mailto:mhakkinen@ets.org>
> 20 February 2017 at 21:10
>
> I rewrote David’s proposal.  I wanted to also capture the issue of 
> internationalization. The changes start of the link.
>
> <h2>Incomplete Candidate Success Criteria</h2>
>
> <p>The following are success criteria proposals by the task forces 
> that have been identified to address important accessibility barriers 
> on the web. However, they have not yet met one or more of the <a 
> href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>requirements 
> for a success criteria. </a> We are seeking feedback on the proposals 
> to determine whether or how they can meet the requirements of being 
> testable, implementable, apply to all content, and apply across all 
> technologies (or how to manage exceptions).  In addition, review from 
> the perspective of internationalization for proposals dealing with 
> language and symbology is requested.
>
> On 2/20/17, 4:07 PM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com 
> <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I agree with Mark, but I also like the direction that David was 
> suggesting. Perhaps the "explanation" paragraph needs some reworking:
>
> <draft>
>
> <p>The following are success criteria proposals by the task forces 
> that have been identified to address important accessibility barriers 
> on the web. However, they have not yet met one or more of the <a 
> href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>requirements 
> for a success criteria</a>, */or are otherwise not mature enough for 
> direct inclusion today. The Working Group solicits broader feedback on 
> both the substance and editorial content of these draft Candidates/*.</p>
>
> </draft>
>
> Something like that?
>
> JF
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Foliot <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 20 February 2017 at 21:07
> Hmmm...
>
> I agree with Mark, but I also like the direction that David was 
> suggesting. Perhaps the "explanation" paragraph needs some reworking:
>
> <draft>
>
> <p>The following are success criteria proposals by the task forces 
> that have been identified to address important accessibility barriers 
> on the web. However, they have not yet met one or more of the <a 
> href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria 
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>>requirements for 
> a success criteria</a>, */or are otherwise not mature enough for 
> direct inclusion today. The Working Group solicits broader feedback on 
> both the substance and editorial content of these draft Candidates/*.</p>
>
> </draft>
>
> Something like that?
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
> Hakkinen, Mark T <mailto:mhakkinen@ets.org>
> 20 February 2017 at 20:59
>
> Jason, I disagree with David’s proposal.  Suggesting that it is just 
> wording changes that are needed when if fact there may be conceptual 
> issues, lack of data, or other difficult problems.  It invites 
> reviewers to edit, but not explore the deeper issues.
>
> On 2/20/17, 3:12 PM, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org 
> <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
>
> *From:*David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 3:02 PM
>
>
> >Incomplete Candidates" ?
>
> It could be something like this.
>
> */[Jason] […]/*
>
> */I would be comfortable with language such as that which David has 
> put forward here, preferably after moving the proposals into an 
> Appendix, but leaving the two proposals that the working group agreed 
> should go in the draft in the body of the document./*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> White, Jason J <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>
> 20 February 2017 at 20:12
>
> *From:*David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 3:02 PM
>
> >Incomplete Candidates" ?
>
> It could be something like this.
>
> */[Jason] […]/*
>
> */I would be comfortable with language such as that which David has 
> put forward here, preferably after moving the proposals into an 
> Appendix, but leaving the two proposals that the working group agreed 
> should go in the draft in the body of the document./*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie