Re: [WCAG2ICT] Please respond: Comments on Closed Functionality - which option do you prefer?

I vote for #1

#2 adds details that themselves open up new questions we don’t address  - and doesn’t cover other aspects that do need to be considered.

Basically—
 #1 has the key message we need to deliver - and passes the work resolving it on to some group charged and able to study it in detail and try to adress it..    
#2 starts the process of examining it in more detail -  but does not go far enough and does not close the loops it opens.


g




> On Feb 1, 2024, at 11:39 AM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> In today’s meeting I neglected to bring up one last thing on the edits to the Comments on Closed Functionality section.  The last survey was split as to which proposal option to use. By a 4 to 2 vote, Option 1 (with less detail) was preferred. Option 2 has more detail that describes some of the intricacies that closed functionality entails and Bruce had a strong preference for the second proposal with a suggested edit. Loïc also liked option 2, but is willing to go with the majority.
>  
> In the survey, Bruce suggested an edit for proposal 2 and I’ve incorporated the essence of his suggestion into the PR.  I also merged in the PRs we agreed on today into this branch. I need for us to come to consensus on which option to incorporate before I can merge the all of these updates into the editor’s draft.
>  
> YOUR TO-DO: Please take one last look at the Comments on Closed functionality <https://deploy-preview-254--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#comments-on-closed-functionality> section the comments in the survey <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-more-to-review/results#xq5>.  Respond to this email with your vote on which option you prefer, in case you’ve been swayed by other’s responses. Indicate whether it is a strong preference (with reasoning, if you can), and then indicate if you would be comfortable going with the majority, even if they prefer the other option. 
>  
> Once I have the preference, I will send out a call for consensus (CfC) so I can officially log the decision.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Mary Jo Mueller
> IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager