Re: [EXT] Re: CFC - Update WCAG 3 Working Draft

As I understand there is also a required publishing of an update.

The Chairs know what they are doing!

From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:25 AM
To: Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov>, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: CFC - Update WCAG 3 Working Draft
+1. I note John's objection and agree that the group should work out how to deal with the issue - my thinking is that the answer is probably "in small bites focused around specific practical questions about specific requirements. And I note




+1.



I note John's objection and agree that the group should work out how to deal with the issue - my thinking is that the answer is probably "in small bites focused around specific practical questions about specific requirements.



And I note the 0s from people who are concerned there aren't enough of those to justify an update. But I think it is important to provide a regular update of whatever has happened, and that's the point of publishing successive Working Drafts on a reasonably regular cadence. Where not much has happened, IMHO it's a good idea to note the things that are not moving because they are hard issues where we haven't made progress, and the things that are not moving because we haven't got around to them. Neither of those, IMHO, are reasons to hold back the updates.



cheers



Chaals



On Monday, July 17, 2023 19:59:44 (+02:00), Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L wrote:



> That was a correct assumption. Corrected below.

>

> ________________________________

> From: Mary Jo Mueller

> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:57 PM

> To: Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L ; WCAG ; Silver TF

> Subject: Re: CFC - Update WCAG 3 Working Draft

>

>

> CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.

>

> +1 under the assumption that the pre-cfc email “didn’t” raise additional concerns, which I assume was a typo.

>

>

>

> Best regards,

>

>

>

> Mary Jo Mueller

>

> IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager

>

>

>

>

>

> From: Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L

> Date: Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:41 PM

> To: WCAG , Silver TF

> Subject: [EXTERNAL] CFC - Update WCAG 3 Working Draft

>

> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday July 21st at 2pm Boston time. We previously agreed update the WCAG 3 Working Draft from the Editor's Draft Our pre-cfc email did raise any additional concerns. The next step (in a future CFC) will be to agree

>

> 

>

> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday July 21st at 2pm Boston time.

>

>

>

> We previously agreed update the WCAG 3 Working Draft from the Editor's Draft

>

>

>

> Our pre-cfc email did not raise any additional concerns.

>

>

>

>

>

> The next step (in a future CFC) will be to agree the re-publishing of WCAG 2.1 & 2.0 in order that these notes (and all the previous errata) are visible in the latest versions of each.

>

>

>

> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

>

>

>

> Kind regards,

>

>

>

> -Alastair

>

>

>

>

>



--

Charles 'Chaals' Nevile

Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc