Re: Quick Survey - for today

Hi Laura,

Thanks, I’d missed that context, in which case we should include the accepted ones, probably first.

One comment on your response in the survey, I don’t think the public comment was about Graphics Contrast being too broad?
It said: “My only concern relates to the ‘essential’ point which could be a loophole for people to put anything they like on a website arguing the colours have to be that way, but perhaps this will be further clarified during the review process.”

However, essential is a current WCAG construct that we can manage with the documentation, and I can’t see another way around that.

My next thing to tackle is compiling & packaging up more examples of passes & fails, hopefully that will allay David’s concerns as well as anyone new coming to it. It would not be a problem to put graphics contrast into the next batch though, so I have more time to build that case.

Cheers,

-Alastair


On 10/03/2017, 12:48, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Alastair, Jim, Andrew, and all,
    
    From what I gathered at Tuesday's AG WG meeting, I "think" the plan is
    to go through the SCs to ascertain which ones the group agrees to add
    "yes" to in each of the table cells on Andrew's table in the AG Wiki
    [1]. SCs need to fulfill the Success Criteria Requirements.
    
    My take is that just because something is currently in the FPWD
    doesn't mean that it will remain in later versions if it doesn't
    fulfill the acceptance criteria requirements. Andrew is that correct?
    
    That is why, I referenced David's spread sheet [2] in my survey
    responses [3] . He has a good number of the same criteria will cells
    already filled out with his take.
    
    Kindest Regards,
    Laura
    
    [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status

    [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/

    [3] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/top_items/results

    
    
    On 3/10/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
    > Hi Jim,
    >
    > Sorry, I didn’t see this in time, but I recommend avoiding ones that have
    > been accepted (Resize content & graphics contrast) and focusing on the next
    > most-ready ones.
    >
    > For me that is:
    >
    > ·         User interface component contrast,
    >
    > ·         Linearize,
    >
    > ·         Adapting text.
    >
    > I haven’t had much time recently (training almost 200 people at a client
    > site that’s a 10 hour round-trip away), but I should be able to get stuck in
    > again now.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > -Alastair
    >
    >
    > From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
    > Date: Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 17:22
    > To: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
    > Subject: Quick Survey - for today
    > Resent-From: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
    > Resent-Date: Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 17:23
    >
    > the Accessibility guidelines working group wants know our top 3 SCs for them
    > to review.
    > Please complete this survey today.
    > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/top_items/

    >
    > --
    > Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
    > Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
    > 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
    > voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/

    > "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Laura L. Carlson

Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 13:13:15 UTC