RE: Issues Status re Conformance Challenges document

Thanks, Alastair. Good to know the appropriate meaning of AG issues on github.

Two quick questions:

How should we mark an issue we believe should receive wide review input before we try to resolve it? An example from the current set related to Challenges would be 943. It would seem antithetical to try and answer that concern ex cathedra.

Second, are these meanings/practices written up anywhere? Did I miss an AGWG github best practices somewhere? My apologies if I missed that, but I would happily keep such a doc at hand.



From: Alastair Campbell <>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 7:04 AM
To: Sajka, Janina <>; Silver Task Force <>
Cc:; Korn, Peter <>; Cronin, Joe <>
Subject: RE: Issues Status re Conformance Challenges document

Hi Janina,

Apologies, the 'marked for Triage' aspects was just because it was added to the Github project. The "by Alastair" is just because I setup the project.

The workflow order for the status' is:

  *   Needs triage (i.e. someone looks to see if it is low priority, high priority, non-issue, or already dealt with, then move it to another status/column).
  *   Low priority (something that shouldn't affect FPWD)
  *   High priority (something that would block FPWD)
  *   Completed (dealt with).

There is a kanban-board to move things around, but the easier way is probably per-issue where there is a drop-down under the "Projects" heading to set the status.

If something is assigned to 'triage', that means it needs assigning & prioritising.



From: Sajka, Janina <<>>
Sent: 06 December 2019 18:33
To: Silver Task Force <<>>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <<>>;<>; Korn, Peter <<>>; Cronin, Joe <<>>
Subject: Issues Status re Conformance Challenges document


Herewith a summary report.

Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing
Issue Status as of Friday 6 December

Open = 10
Triage = 8
FPWD = 2

Some key Issues and their disposition/status ...

Item: Document title isn't providing context
Issue 933 Closed: Titled changed to: "Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance and Testing"

Item: Consider sampling strategies (as per WCAG-EM)
Issue 937: Marked for triage

Item: Urban metaphor is inappropriate
Issue 939 Closed: The metaphor has been removed from document text.

Item: Is this a testability or conformance challenge?
Issue 940: Marked for triage by Alastair

Item: Are there limits to the accessible template approach?
Issue 943: Marked for triage

Item: Copyrighted content under Challenge 3
Issue 944: Marked for triage by Alastair.

Item: Should guidance extend beyond websites?
Issue 945 Closed: OBE in Charter scoping.

Item: Where should text spacing be handled?
Issue 946: Marked for triage by Alastair

Item: Is Challenge 3 also about user provided content?
Issue 947 is still open because Alastair marked it for triage. Else, we could
close it.

Item: Does 1.3.5 belong in Challenge #4
Issue 954: Marked for triage by Alastair

Item: Update Acknowledgements List
Issue 955 FPWD and assigned to Janina with Michael's consent.
Will do week of 9 December.

Item: Challenge 1 should be renamed
Issue 956 Closed: Andrew's suggestion is now in the Editor's Draft. Other
topics raised in the discussion started by 956 have been moved to invidiual issues.

Item: Define "large, complex, and dynamic websites"
Issue 962 Closed: Terms glossary created in working draft branch with 3 definitions;

Item:Goals: Hard to find; need better explanation
Issue 972 Closed: Added Goals subsection to Intro; Still needs markup love for class and ID

Item: Human review isn't all bad
Issue 986 opened for FPWD and (theoretically) assigned to @peterkorn.
Marked low priority by Alastair.


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant<>

Received on Monday, 9 December 2019 21:04:40 UTC