Re: CFC - Moving Silver Requirements to note

I think we need to get the requirement in before moving it to a note. we
can edit it after but it needs to be there

-1

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rachael Montgomery <
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> wrote:

> We do need this in note track so I also think that moving this cfc forward
> and scheduling the content conversations makes sense.
>
> Lisa, Steve - if you are ok with this approach, I can create a set of
> suggested changes based on the conversation at the COGA call for review and
> discussion at the next COGA meeting.
>
> Rachael
>
> On Oct 1, 2020, 7:23 PM -0400, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>,
> wrote:
>
> Hi Lisa, Steve,
>
> The current situation is that if the CFC does not pass the requirements
> stand as they are, just in the current format and location.
>
> No one is disagreeing that updates are needed, how about we agree to
> schedule a round of updates after the FPWD?
>
> This isn't the only update, and we should give it the time to discuss and
> agree. A CFC isn't the place for that.
>
> I suggest any updates are posted on the Silver repo, like these ones:
> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Requirements
>
> Then we can survey those and do another CFC for the content updates.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
> Sent: 01 October 2020 16:12
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CFC - Moving Silver Requirements to note
>
> -1
>
> Sorry to potentially cause a delay but if the text:
>
> "Disability Needs: An improved measurement and conformance structure that
> includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes
> particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive
> accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement
> success criteria of WCAG 2.x."
>
> was moved to the Requirements section from Scope my concern would be met.
> And perhaps part of Lisa's? This may seem obvious but the requirements
> should actually call out user needs / requirements as the starting point.
>
> Could this be done with less process overhead than a significant change.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 30/09/2020 23:22, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>
> I apologize for doing this, and I know the silver taskforce is trying
> hard,  but I can not agree with the silver requirements
>
> My concern is that the requirements (in section 4) do not include, or
> even imply, that all user needs will be addressed to the best of our
> ability.
>
>  It does not include that following these requirements will enabled
> content to be as accessible as possible for all people with
> disabilities. The requirement section does not address the imbalance
> of user needs in the current guidelines, across the different
> disability groups.  (Note these are implied in the scope but not in
> the requirements. It must be in the actual requirements)
>
> Again the focus of the requirements is on measurability,   adoption
> into law,etc. But if addressing the user needs are not a requirement,
> what is the point?
> -1
>
> Keep well, and thanks again for the huge effort in creating this work
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:16 PM Alastair Campbell
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday, October 5th at 12 (midday) Boston
> time.____
>
> ____
>
> The Working Group has discussed moving the Silver Requirements to a
> group note, recently with this survey:____
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-requirements-pub/ ____
>
> (Which includes links to the previous survey and minutes.)____
>
> __ __
>
> Last call minutes:
> https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-ag-minutes.html#item09 ____
>
> ____
>
> 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.____
>
> __ __
>
> Kind regards,____
>
> __ __
>
> -Alastair____
>
> __ __
>
> -- ____
>
> __ __
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com>
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
>