Re: Proliferation of SCs

Agree with Kathy. This was briefly discussed today in the meeting and at this point there are no limits being placed on SC's for 2.1. There is no guarantee that any submitted SC will be accepted by the WG and make it into 2.1, but we are not setting limits at this time.

AWK

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 20, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:

+1 to Kathy. I don't think the TF should be self-censoring based on "volume of proposed SC" - that should be a task dealt with at the WG level.

JF

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com<mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>> wrote:
We will not be moving this into an extension.

We will move forward with all the SCs that were decided in the taskforce.  The working group will then decide how these will be incorporated into WCAG 2.1

We have to educate people on what is needed for mobile accessibility and how we can ensure that people who are looking for mobile accessibility information know where to go to get this information.

Kathy
CEO & Founder
Interactive Accessibility

T (978) 443-0798<tel:%28978%29%C2%A0443-0798>  F (978) 560-1251<tel:%28978%29%C2%A0560-1251>  C (978) 760-0682<tel:%28978%29%C2%A0760-0682>
E kathyw@ia11y.com<mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com<http://www.InteractiveAccessibility.com>

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 7:28 AM
To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proliferation of SCs



On 20/09/2016 04:40, David MacDonald wrote:

> Although I appreciate that rational of wanting to have a consistency
> between keyboard and pointer requirements in WCAG, and also appreciate
> that the first choice would have been an integration of Pointer and
> Keyboard SCs using a ore abstract SC at 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, so there
> wasn't a proliferation of SCs, I think the confusion about the number
> of SCs we are proposing has caused some in the WCAG  group and staff
> to go back to considering a separate extension for mobile which I feel
> would be a major step backwards.

If they're thinking about moving our SCs to a "mobile" extension, they clearly haven't understood the fundamental point that "desktop/mobile"
distinction is becoming increasingly blurry and irrelevant in today's world...(e.g. touch not being about "mobile" etc)

Is there anything on record about this that can be discussed further with the relevant group/staff? This is a rather fundamental issue, I'd say.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk<http://www.splintered.co.uk> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke




--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion