W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Re[3]: charter update with two year cycle

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:13:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDboTv56FTerd0Ugbw=uBvyTJY9z7Bk16Ro3kf4EsnxirA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, "wai-wcag-editor@w3.org" <wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Perhaps a way around it is to add a couple of words to the sentence to
eliminate pronouns and confusion.
"...as well as adding improvements to better support users with low vision
 <add>and users with</add> cognitive, language, and learning impairments.
​"

My concern is the sente
nce

"The Working Group intends to produce regular updates for WCAG guidelines,
starting with WCAG 2.1. The public schedule for the updates is documented
in the AG WG Project Management Plan"
​
​


​If the "regular updates" are not within the charter period, why do we have
to say that? Why not decide for the next charter.

The term "regular updates" again sounds like we have consensus that we are
going to set a schedule of releases, rather than ship when its done. Do we
actually have consensus that it is the best path forward?

If we move to a regular update schedule then it reduces the requirement to
keep the the WCAG 2 technology agnostic requirement for SCs which are
designed to be stable without "regular updates".  Why put such strict
requirements on SCs in our acceptance criteria if we're going to "update
regularly"? These strict requirements are in place partly to make them
stable over a long time.

It's just a different model from WCAG 2. So why call them DOT releases of
WCAG 2?



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> I agree with Katie’s point 1 below.
>
> Regarding point 2, I think it should be “or”, not “and” since otherwise it
> would refer to people who have both low vision and cognitive disabilities
> (i.e., people who happen to have both types of disability simultaneously),
> whereas it’s actually meant to refer to people with low vision or with
> cognitive disabilities (thus defining the populations served by these
> extensions).
>
>
>
> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 7:40 AM
> *To:* Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; wai-wcag-editor@w3.org
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Re[3]: charter update with two year cycle
>
>
>
> Josh and WCAG Editors,
>
> Thanks, my comments are:
>
> 1. I like some of the new ideas in this version.
>
> 2. All places where it says "low vision or cognitive disabilities", please
> replace 'or' with 'and'. So it should read: low vision and cognitive
> disabilities
>
> 3. Where can we see the schedule for the updates is documented in the AG
> WG Project Management Plan?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> 703-371-5545
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2016 6:00 AM, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Katie and all,
>
>
>
> Katie said:
>
> >I would ask again, especially of the chairs, if a regular cycle >must be
> defined, why compromise, apparently, is no longer >an option in this WG any
> more. Why is there no ability to >compromise between 10 and 2? on say 3, 4
> or 5 years?
>
> Of course there is. All of this work is about the line between our end
> users requirements and the needs and wants of the group members etc. So we
> are working towards a compromise/workable solution. I urge everyone to take
> a breath. There is a new draft that the group will get a chance to give two
> or three cents on but we have been listening, and take very seriously yours
> (and others) ardent concerns. [1]
>
> Notice that details of timeframe etc are being moved out of the charter to
> a seperate 'AG WG Project Management Plan' doc that is being worked on.
>
> More details to follow.
>
> I appreciated e'ones input on this but think it is time to find some zen
> space to let this evolve in a sensible way.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 18:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC