Coga: urgent: Pre-CFC drafts ignores our objections

Hi folks
Juilie sent this out already but it is with a bunch of other things. This
is very important and we only have a few days.
SO far as I can see  our issues are not properly addressed. This includes:
 http://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues/654
 http://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues/653

For example, we wrote in the first issue (653):  A lot of assertions are
very important. They are processes, but still essential to the user. The
way the terms are laid out make them look less important rather than
non-process requirements.

We propose that Assertions can be core or supplemental depending on whether
they are essential to the user. If users can not independently use the
content without this Assertion because of their disability, then the
assertion should be core.

Supplemental assertions can be accessibility practices that improve the
usability for people with disabilities.

For example, provisions can be labeled as a Core assertion or as a
Supplemental Assertion.


Here is the pre CFC's notes



*Pre-CFC comments due end of day Sunday, August 30th*

   - WCAG 3 Section 3. Conformance
   <https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#conformance>
      - Change History <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/826/changes>
highlights
      the recent changes
      - See Rachael's pre-CFC email on August 26th for more details.
   - WCAG 3 Section 4. Progress towards and beyond conformance
   <https://deploy-preview-827--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#progress-towards-and-beyond-conformance>
      - The AG chairs will send pre-CFC email for this section later
      tonight or early on August 27th.
      - That email will include a link to the change-history view.


-- 
All the best

Lisa Seeman-Horwitz

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