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

Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:53:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxEU=CPb0wuF8bo5b5LXMMPPfHEeL3JD5e+iAkaf0wNrLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Bailey, Bruce" <bailey@access-board.gov>, Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@digital.gov.au>, "Hoffman, Allen" <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
Yes David,

That worries me. I think we need more discussion on this issue with users,
advocacy groups, and government stakeholders - all of whom are currently
lacking in force in our WG.

The assertion that governments should 'keep up with us' (is not only
arrogant, but), shows a clear lack in understanding the complexities of
building integrity and solid vetting into specifications prior to uptake by
governments.

Laws have the ability to change discriminatory behavior via enforcement.
Had it not been for such laws, women wouldn't be able to vote, and
segregation would still be in force.

WCAG has provided a gold standard tool for all to point to. Updates should
maintain that rigorous testability and vetting process to maintain the
integrity of the Accessibility specs from the W3C.

The majority of organizations will not implement accessibity requirements
unless forced to by regulations.

Others may not *like* that fact. Neither do I - but that is what I have
observed to be true.

We can talk the digital accessibity ROI all day, and, it being the right
thing to do - but my experience has been that organizations will not
implement if they do not have to.

Isn't the end goal of WCAG to assist developers and governments to help
users with disabilities have a fair shot? I really do not understand this
stance to not *help* governments acheive this goal to the best of our
ability.

AC Reps and W3M should not be whom we are trying to please as much as our
number one stakeholder, the user. This specification will mean nothing if
it looses intergity and usefullness to them, by not being adopted - because
it was treated like an agile web language - instead of the life-altering
accessibility standard that supports human rights.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 12, 2016 4:59 AM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Ohhh... that's why.
>
> I'm looking at section 3.1 Normative Specifications
>
> It doesn't look like my concern was addressed, because we have a section
> called "normative specifications" in which we say we will do "regular
> updates" which means we have adopted a different model from WCAG 2 which
> was was released when it was complete (rather than on a time) and had
> widespread approval. So it seems like it has been decided that we will ship
> on a schedule rather than when the spec is ready. Does that not worry
> anyone else? I was hoping we could come to consensus about whether we were
> actually going to ship on a set schedule.
>
> 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not sure what to tell you - I just followed the link and see the
>> following:[image: image1.PNG]
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:57 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I
>> ​'ve looked on 3 computers and I keep seeing the version​
>> ​ with the following
>>  sentence
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> ​I believe the consensus changed that sentence.
>>
>> 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PS the link to the minutes seems to go to the AUG 23 meeting??
>>>
>>> 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:13 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ​This seems to be the same document that we had going into the call...
>>>>
>>>>  http://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
>>>>
>>>> is there a version with the amended text that we came to consensus to,
>>>> on the call.
>>>>
>>>> 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday October 13 at 1:00pm Boston time.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a CfC seeking WG approval to release the current draft charter
>>>>> for AC review.  The item was surveyed, discussed on the WG call, and
>>>>> approved (http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03>). There
>>>>> was much discussion leading up to the call, and on the call, and the group
>>>>> felt that a consensus opinion was reached on key items.
>>>>>
>>>>> Draft charter: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 position, please let the group know before
>>>>> the CfC deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> AWK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

image1.PNG
(image/png attachment: image1.PNG)

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 02:54:00 UTC

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