Re: proposed

+1, although I'd be more specific about "develop best practice" - for what,
for whom?

Personally, I'd rephrase that to focus on "develop best practice for tool
vendors" as well as "develop a best practices authoring guide" (for content
creators), as I see those two groups (at least) having very different needs
and goals. For example, we discussed switching symbol sets on today's call
- that would be on the tool vendors to support, not the content authors.

As another item for our draft charter: would we (or our TF in tandem with
the COGA TF) work on/propose one or more new Success Criteria for WCAG 2.3?
(Yes, there will be a WCAG 2.3 - at least, that's where my money is betting
- as WCAG 3.0 is still many years out IMHO). Also, if.when our first module
is finalized, we could look to ensure that new techniques exist to support
WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.4 & SC 1.3.5. While that likely and ultimately is the remit
of the AGWG, I see no harm in us crafting and delivering an initial draft
to that WG as part of our mandate. Thoughts there?

JF

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:02 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is what we think we want to do over the next 3 years
> For coga identified needs:
>
>    - module 1: pr
>    - module 2: WD  Hopely CR if we can
>    - develop best practice (may included user settings)
>    - module 3 : WD
>
> Let us know what you think
>
> All the best
> Lisa
>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Specialist
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"