RE: voting on the CFC in wcag on - Identify Common Controls, Identify Controls, and Issue responses

Hi everyone,

Positive votes are useful, but it is only a lack of negative votes that gets something through.

I.e. we need to overcome the reasons people vote against it, either by adapting the SC or persuasion.

To explain the options, there are three versions on the table, the 1st is my preference:


The purpose of common user interface components can be programmatically determined when:


  *   The content is implemented using technologies that support identifying the expected purpose for user interface components, and
  *   The Interface component has a purpose that maps to the list of common user interface components


In comparison, the second is more specific about only applying to inputs, and uses a direct link to the HTML5 spec. I don’t favour that one as it is less flexible in future versions.

The third is very similar to the 2nd, except it is one paragraph without bullets (less readable).

The only current objection on the 1st one is that it doesn’t refer to it being user-specific (i.e. a field like ‘name’ should be the user’s name, don’t put that attribute on ‘spouses name’.

I’ll tackle that on the list.

So for answers, I’d recommend the ‘I can live with’ answer for each.

Annoyingly the last question assumes that the AAA is an expansion of the AA, but it isn’t the same thing. For that I didn’t select any option and put:
“This question isn't valid, the AAA version is different, it isn't simply an expansion, it should be assessed independently.”

HTH,

-Alastair



From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 18 January 2018 21:08
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: voting on the CFC in wcag on - Identify Common Controls, Identify Controls, and Issue responses

Hi Folks

following our call about the wcag survey I  sent the email bellow to the wcag list.

I assume if a few of us do it this way they will count it as a vote.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



============ Forwarded message ============
From : <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
To : "Andrew Kirkpatrick"<akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc : "WCAG"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Date : Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:29:50 +0200
Subject : Re: CFC - Identify Common Controls, Identify Controls, and Issue responses
============ Forwarded message ============
We went over this CFC on the coga call and most of us found the survey  much to confusing to vote and we could not find the options we were looking for

I would like the AA to stay as is, and the AAA to stay as is independent on what happens to the (AA)
I can not live removing or changing the AA
I can not live removing or changing the AAA

please consider this my vote. (Let me know if this is not a valid way to vote)

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:46:07 +0200 Andrew Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote ----
Call For Consensus — ends Friday January 19th at 10:00pm Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed responses to issues on the Identify Common Purpose SC and discussed the SC at length. There are a few possible options on the table. This CFC is being conducted via a survey due to the complexity.

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CFC_Id_common_controls/


Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0