Re: draft text for charter

Fixed typo “beyond” in scope statement


New text for scope statement:

The Working Group will identify any accessibility requirements for its deliverables beyond previously existing WCAG, UAAG, and other requirements of the W3C. These will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.

And following is the text in coordination section:

The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with Working Groups focusing on accessibility to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.

Thanks
EOM

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301



On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:33 AM, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net<mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net> wrote:

Works for me as wll.  How about this?


New text for scope statement:

The Working Group will identify any accessibility requirements for its deliverables betond previously existing WCAG, UAAG, and other requirements of the W3C. These will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.

And following is the text in coordination section:

The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with Working Groups focusing on accessibility to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.

Deborah

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Charles LaPierre wrote:

I like Ivan’s idea of 'wg-s concerned with accessibility’ such as ARIA, WAI, WCAG, so yeah works for me.
Thanks
EOM
Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301

     On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:

     On 27 Feb 2017, at 17:47, deborah.kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net<mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>> wrote:

     I am fine with this text. It's longer than I thought Ivan wanted it to
     be,  but if he thinks it's aan acceptable length I think it's relatively
     clear while also being explicit  about the fact that we will incorporate
     accessibility requirements in any recommendation-track deliverables,,
     and the fact that we will be coordinating with other groups.
Well… it is a little bit too long, compared to the rest of the charter. That, by itself, may be ok, however (if I play devil's advocate, the following text:
[[
The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the
Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables  will
contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of
readers with different needs and capabilities.
]]
may be considered to be superfluous in the charter. The reason is that this is a requirement for any W3C recommendation, mainly when talking about user-facing specifications like this. In
other words, this does not add anything to what is already a default requirement, does it?
For me, the important point is:
[[
...additional extended requirements will be
identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative
specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more
stringent accessibility requirements.
]]
because it shows that we _may_ have extra requirements and we intend to put these into the spec as well. For me, _that_ is the important point...

     My only issue  is the following:

     "The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with the WCAG Working
     Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its
     recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology."

     I don't think we should be limiting ourselves to coordinating with WCAG.
     I would prefer  "will coordinate with the WCAG Working Group, as well as
     any other  working groups as needed, to integrate …"
This may be vague, what about "wg-s concerned with accessibility', or something like that?
Ivan

     Deborah