Re: Survey Comments Reviews

Again, I worked directly in the Google Doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13SMA551BOg2JAkOqO_oF0jJutQkcUOexp-SOvO0CGXM/edit#heading=h.ieelbtnhsw9w> to pull the themes and actions from the Scope question. The dominant theme here is that as written, the scope is not sufficiently clear and the implication of self-regulation is a concern.

The 2 address now items that I identified are:

  1.  Address (objection)
     *   As worded, the self-regulated aspect of scope and possible exploitation is a common concern. This could be addressed editorially to better describe that the purpose is simply to permit a conformance claim to align to a scope beyond the archaic concept of a page. It is not intended to permit areas outside of the scope to assert a claim.
  2.  Address (enhancement)
     *   As worded, the terms project and product are not clearly defined and may not apply. Consider definitions or parenthetical descriptions. In the newspaper example, it may be necessary to describe how a section could be the scope if that resides on a page or other specific context that is not in the scope and does not itself conform.


Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect
Invited Expert, W3C Accessibility Guidelines Working Group & Silver Task Force
Learning Ambassador, MRM//McCann
Member, Global Diversity Coalition, McCann Worldgroup

(he//him)
charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com>
W +1.248.203.8723
M +1.248.225.8179
360 W Maple, Birmingham MI 48009
mrm-mccann.com<https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>

[MRM//McCann]
Cannes Network of the Year
Effie’s Most Creatively Effective Global Network 2018, 2019
Adweek 2019 Global Agency of the Year
IPG Agency Inclusion Vanguard – Agency of the Year 2019


From: "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>
Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Survey Comments Reviews
Resent-From: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 2:38 PM

I worked directly in the Google Doc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_13SMA551BOg2JAkOqO-5FoF0jJutQkcUOexp-2DSOvO0CGXM_edit-23heading-3Dh.68zb62cug0dn&d=DwMGaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=G9jmOrIbd6hs7ZBdnDaIUpooXaN_AF6n2A0W8PRvG00&s=O_oenSqgxJ0qz1Tw0B6wO42Esn0pWZtUofPvUcHBb6E&e=> to pull the themes and actions from the Information Architecture question. It seems the content is clouding understanding the structure – particularly since the section in question is “How Conformance fits into the Information Architecture”. Many pointed out a need to compare to WCAG 2.x in order to understand this fit.

The 2 address now items that I identified are:

  1.  Address (objection)
     *   Declare and re-affirm content drafts as examples to demonstrate structure and hierarchy only. They are insufficient, incomplete, unclear which takes attention away from the outline model.
  2.  Address (enhancement)
     *   Declare each section as ‘normative’ or ‘informative’ (non-normative)

This is all I can contribute at the moment.

Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect
Invited Expert, W3C Accessibility Guidelines Working Group & Silver Task Force
Learning Ambassador, MRM//McCann
Member, Global Diversity Coalition, McCann Worldgroup

(he//him)
charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com>
W +1.248.203.8723
M +1.248.225.8179
360 W Maple, Birmingham MI 48009
mrm-mccann.com<https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>

[MRM//McCann]
Cannes Network of the Year
Effie’s Most Creatively Effective Global Network 2018, 2019
Adweek 2019 Global Agency of the Year
IPG Agency Inclusion Vanguard – Agency of the Year 2019

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. Thank you very much.