Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Accessibility Checklist

On 2/9/2017 11:22 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
>
> These look like good suggestions Judy….
>

Thanks.

To be clear, I support this draft going ahead with minimal editorial 
clarifications at this stage, and the rest to be considered by the WG 
along with other suggestions that come in from wider review.

- Judy


> ​​​​​** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****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:*Judy Brewer [mailto:jbrewer@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2017 12:21 AM
> *To:* Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>; public-apa-admin@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Accessibility Checklist
>
> And to add a word of support, it's very good to see this checklist 
> progressing, and my thanks to Michael and the WG for getting it to 
> this stage.
>
> My reason for making the suggestions below are in part so that when 
> the checklist first goes for wider review, the relevance for spec 
> developers might be clearer from the get-go.
>
> My guess is that the more strictly web content issues may not be as 
> frequently encountered in specs, nor as compelling as some of the 
> interop and API issues.
>
> One further thought, with regard to the Intro:  I suggest that the 
> Intro include at least a short paragraph along the lines of a "how to 
> use this checklist," that would provide a minimum of orientation for 
> spec developers unfamiliar with this tool and/or completely unfamiliar 
> with accessibility. Thoughts about what to include in that (I think 
> that these could be added with very brief text, keeping a pretty terse 
> Intro) : 1) add a link to the "Web for All" part of W3C's mission; 2) 
> link to one or two basic intro pieces on web accessibility, maybe 
> including the user scenario section of "How People with Disabilties 
> Use the Web"; 3) point out that the more detailed WTAG Editor's draft 
> http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/wtag.html has more background for 
> issues that earn a check-mark, and if possible, link from the 
> checklist items to the relevant background in the WTAG document; 4) 
> make it clearer that the checklist is to facilitate WGs' early 
> planning on how to meet accessibility needs, but not to substitute for 
> an accessibility review by APA WG; 5) put out the welcome mat by 
> encouraging WGs to contact APA WG for any questions at any time (if 
> that's a realistic offer) and especially to be sure to reach out to 
> APA "X" # of weeks in advance of a spec's hitting CR (unless that 
> latter part is now sufficiently systematized that you don't need a 
> reminder on the "reach out" step).
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Judy
>
> On 2/8/2017 11:59 PM, Judy Brewer wrote:
> > Hi Janina,
>
> >
>
> > A quick note on review of this, hopefully just under the wire:
>
> >
>
> > - I recommend updating the the intro section to remove PFWG
>
> > references and provide more context about purpose
>
> >
>
> > - Also re-ordering sections of the checklist to move the web content
>
> > portions further down the list, and start with items relating more to
>
> > typical issues that APA comments on in horizontal charter reviews,
>
> > especially interoperability and API issues
>
> >
>
> > - Also populating those latter categories a bit more.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > - Judy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 2/7/2017 7:30 AM, Janina Sajka wrote:
>
> >> +1
>
> >>
>
> >> Janina Sajka writes:
>
> >>> Colleagues:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
>
> >>> Architectures (APA) Working Group on obtaining wider W3C review
>
> >>> comments to our draft Accessibility Checklist:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html
>
> >>>
>
> >>> *    ACTION TO TAKE
>
> >>>
>
> >>> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as
>
> >>> statements of support via email. Silence will be interpreted as
>
> >>> support, though messages of support are certainly welcome.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments
>
> >>> concerning this proposal, please respond by replying on list to
>
> >>> this message no later than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time,
>
> >>> Wednesday 8 February.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Janina
>
> >>>
>
> >>> --
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Janina Sajka,    Phone: +1.443.300.2200
>
> >>> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net 
> <mailto:sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net> Email: janina@rednote.net 
> <mailto:janina@rednote.net>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:
>
> >>> http://a11y.org
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative
>
> >>> (WAI) Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures
>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>
> >>>
>
> >
>