Re: wcag 2.2 acceptance criteria

Hi Lisa,

For anyone else replying, please leave out the emails for Shawn/Shadi/Roy, they aren’t directly involved in this, it’s a “feature” of the survey that their emails are added.

There are two areas here:


  1.  How to respond to surveys.
  2.  The WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria.

I emailed the COGA TF about the acceptance criteria earlier.

For this thread on the survey, I propose that myself (or a delegate) join a COGA call to provide an overview of the survey decision.

If we provide sufficient context to made a decision (and this was something that was gradually worked on over 4+ weeks) it is overwhelming. If we don’t, it lacks context.

I think the simplest solution is to provide an overview in a call and ask/answer questions.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Reply-To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 March 2019 at 16:27
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, shadi <shadi@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, shawn <shawn@w3.org>, ran <ran@w3.org>
Cc: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: wcag 2.2 acceptance criteria

Hi Folks,

There was a lot of discussion in coga about the wcag 2.2 acceptance criteria and many people had issues using the survey at

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22_yesno/

There were issues and concerns about acceptance requirements restrictions which we did not agree with. People felt it hard to vote in the survey for wcag 2.2 because it was hard to understand what we were agreeing to and find yes/no votes hard in general.

See

https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-COGA-minutes.html


Does anyone want to add any more concerns to this?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

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