Re: CFC Web Survey

Thanks. I responded, but have one clarifying response for the record.

The question of whether to move the text role should have been separate from the question about the null role description value. It also should have been phrased to ~"move the text or static role out of 1.1" (which I support) rather than ~"move the text or static role specifically to 2.0" (which I don't necessarily agree with). In either case, since there was no way to vote against the 2.0 version, that portion of the survey cannot be binding, and am stating this for the record. The right to raise the static or text role for a later 1.x release (not 1.1) remains, regardless of the outcome of this survey.

Future surveys should also be worded so that the subsequent questions cannot contradict each other. In other words, if both questions had a majority Yes vote (or a No vote), we'd be at a stalemate and would have to run a new survey. 


> On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Since you both have been out on vacation I wanted to point you to 2 CFCs that were issued last week. 
> 
> We have a CFC Web Survey that wraps up Wednesday evening. In the prior week meeting we ran a web survey that showed we did not have consensus to adopt the text role in ARIA 1.1. What was left is to determine how to handle the null value of aria-roledescription:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0016.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0016.html>
> 
> Please take the survey prior to our ARIA Working Group meeting this Thursday.
> 
> We also have a CFC to publish a pseudo last call version of ARIA 1.1 pending the survey. 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0017.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0017.html>
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Rich
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> 
> 
> 
>