W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > May 2017

Re: We have until tomorrow to object - Fwd: RE: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:57:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxwuEzNdrrJehCAM6TajqcUTA1WpDE+8BwR2F8POLs6p=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "Neil.Milliken" <neil.milliken@atos.net>
Hi Mike,

I generally agree, but I think that documents for specific use are also
valuable: we could have one for "Best Practices" (non-normative), but I
would suggest that splitting off "issues" with no known techniques would
also have a value, and more importantly, I was also hoping to see a more
formal "publishing" of the research undertaken by the Task Forces in a
stand-alone document (or documents). All of that research content is
currently scattered across multiple wiki pages that are hard to find, and
somewhat disjointed from the larger WCAG effort.

So:

   1. WCAG 2.1
   2. WCAG non-normative Best Practices
   3. Issues with No Known Solutions today
   4. WCAG Formal Research as of December 2017 [sic]

One advantage of a more finely attuned "splitting" is that it would help
alleviate some of the deadline pressures we are operating under, as we
could stagger the release of multiple documents over a fixed time-line,
rather than a "dump" of WCAG 2.1 plus "Everything Else" (complete with
filtered views, etc.). Our current charter mandates that we "ship" WCAG 2.1
by next summer, but all of the other documentation can "roll-over" beyond
that date, as from what I can tell those would be "additional" deliveries,
and not part of the minimum required deliverable. (Chairs please correct me
if that is not the case.)

Additionally, if we were to separate out the Issues with No Known Solutions
today, we might contemplate passing that along to the Research Questions
Task Force
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/work-statement>
for further work / study / etc. (Many hands making light work, etc.)

In the end, I can live with either decision, but I believe it is worth
contemplating not only the "what" but also the "how".

JF

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michael Pluke <
Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> I’m afraid I’ve always believed that a single non-normative supplemental
> document was the correct way to go. I very much like David McDonald’s
> proposal of being able to create disability specific views of the document
> – particularly if one proposal/guideline can be in multiple views e.g. for
> something that is a benefit for LV and COGA users. So I’ve +1-ed for that.
>
>
>
> The last thing we want if for there to be even more W3C documents that
> people outside W3C have to discover. I’m also not a fan of trying to link
> recommendations and guidelines to specific disabilities or even categories
> of disabilities. It seems to be the wrong way to go.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
> *Sent:* 24 May 2017 11:13
> *To:* public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>;
> Neil.Milliken <neil.milliken@atos.net>
> *Subject:* We have until tomorrow to object - Fwd: RE: Supplementary
> document for WCAG 2.1
>
>
>
> This is a call for consensus in WCAg for the supplement.
>
>
>
> two potential issues
>
>
>
> They want one document for all the supplemental guidance from all the task
> forces. That means there would not be one document for coga.
>
> I have a problem with this because we were hoping to make a document that
> would be useful for policy makers and web authors to use to include people
> with cognitive disabilities in some scenarios. The other task forces are
> not looking for this as a use case for the document.
>
>
>
> I therefore think we will have to argue every step of the way for how the
> document is structured and whether we should try to make things testable
> etc. We will lose our main reason for doing it this, if it is dominated by
> calls for extra research or other usecases.
>
>
>
> also it will be non-normative. we might have to live with this.
>
> DO you agree or have other concerns? if so you have until tomorrow 12:00pm
> Boston time to let wcag know. If you do not object  it will be one, non
> normative, document.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
> *From: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:51 PM
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1
> *Importance: *High
>
>
>
> Resending with the “high priority” flag per our process…
>
>
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday May 25rd at 12:00pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> The Working Group has discussed the idea of providing additional guidance
> for accessibility beyond what is able to be included within WCAG 2.1. The
> idea is that success criteria proposals that cannot reach consensus or that
> there is insufficient time to review still have valuable information that
> might be able to be published for use. This idea was surveyed (
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%
> 2FWCAG21_supp%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f3
> 7ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636311514529786507&sdata=Z09nKmrz3%2BdDRAlSQIgS6EnTF3tnyKnkhx6IU6
> 3M3ds%3D&reserved=0) and discussed on the call (https://na01.safelinks.
> protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%
> 2F2017%2F05%2F23-ag-minutes.html%23item01&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=fuNXCihUvTIK85l38EKARZUd1nbx6v
> v6mPMVhkv2TNg%3D&reserved=0) and a resolution received consensus:
>
>
>
> RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental
> guidance in 1 document that is non-normative
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=O8WWKVhUNZMueiHT4tYMcpGAwn8CCG
> 0MbtYsKZc6jO4%3D&reserved=0
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=O8WWKVhUNZMueiHT4tYMcpGAwn8CCG
> 0MbtYsKZc6jO4%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 14:58:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:59 UTC