RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: 22 February 2016 18:08



"John and Leonie,

Thanks for the comments.  First off, nothing with regard to numbering of added or modified success criteria has been determined.  My suggestion from the earlier email should be regarded as just one idea, so don’t put too much stock into it."

 

Understood. Thanks Andrew.

 

"The combination of multiple extensions does have the potential to get messy, and that is a concern.  What if, for example, the LVTF seeks to modify 1.3.1 and then a few months later the COGA TF wants to do the same? Can a person easily conform to WCAG 2.0+ a low vision extension and also to a COGA extension?  Some of this will need to be managed by the Working Group to ensure that the SC numbers and details are not conflicting but we don’t know the exact form that the documents will take at this point, which is why we are starting from the broad requirements for extensions."

 

Working on the extensions and broad requirements makes sense. We need these new criteria one way or the other, and going through the process will definitely help us understand the degree of complexity we're dealing with.

 

"The concern that you are raising about how extensions all fit together is one of the topics from the chartering discussion, and it is valid, but we are pursuing the now-chartered extension route as well as working to think about what happens down the road."

 

+1

 

I wanted to bring the discussion out of the AC and into the WG. We have lots of work to do under the current charter, and lots to think about in terms of what happens after that.

 

 

 

Léonie.

 

 

-- 

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem