- From: Hogan-Stark, Olivia <Olivia.Hogan-Stark@ncrvoyix.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:57:23 +0000
- To: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <MW3PR15MB3947A43D79256EE4D3E80002BC472@MW3PR15MB3947.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
#1, there is a clear focus on the main message – that closed functionality hinders accessibility, and following WCAG success criteria alone is insufficient. I do appreciate aspects of # 2 but worry about unnecessary repetition and having to expand on additional details. Olivia Hogan-Stark From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us> Date: Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 3:39 PM To: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> Subject: Re: [WCAG2ICT] Please respond: Comments on Closed Functionality - which option do you prefer? *External Message* - Use caution before opening links or attachments 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/deploy-preview-254--wcag2ict.netlify.app/*comments-on-closed-functionality__;Iw!!In4Qlw!s02INXUYmlG7cI2c-wAAQJZPQULf-OIlPCSVfeqysGncW0EHDBwtEKENmeAaEA4-DAox59ZNHWmduJFBrRDLLnTfML2_PS4$> section the comments in the survey<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-closed-more-to-review/results*xq5__;Iw!!In4Qlw!s02INXUYmlG7cI2c-wAAQJZPQULf-OIlPCSVfeqysGncW0EHDBwtEKENmeAaEA4-DAox59ZNHWmduJFBrRDLLnTfjUYWhqE$>. 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
Received on Monday, 5 February 2024 14:57:35 UTC