Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

hmmmm

If AG 3.0  is a combination of   WCAG  UAAG etc.      
it would be general    Web Accessibility Guidelines — wouldn't it?    (  WAG 3.0 ) 

But maybe we should conceive the baby before we name it… 


RE  Push for shorter turn around W3C standards…
 > what is true for technical standards may not be true or logical for guidelines like these.
> if it is not right to go faster - -no amount of pressure should cause us to do the wrong thing. 
  - no amount of pressure would cause you to consummate a pregnancy at 4 months if you had a choice to go full term
> pressure is good - to keep us on our toes and not lallygagging .  But we should not ship something before it is ready…  and WAG 3.0 needs to be much more than an update to WCAG.   We REALLY need to rethink accessibility to be able to address what is coming or we will be creating improved tubes in a transistor world. 

best

gregg

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
> 
> The one thing where I stumbled is the name change from WCAG WG to AG WG (so presumably 'Silver' ending up being called AG 3.0). This sounds very different from WCAG and makes it hard to recognise that AG is actually an upgrade of WCAG. 
> If the implication of dropping 'WC' is that the scope of the guidelines extends to software / native apps in general, this should be made more explicit in the charter and elsewhere.
> 
> Apart from that issue I think the charter is fine.
> 
> Sent from phone
> 
> Am 11.10.2016 um 22:12 schrieb Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>:
> 
>> The url for the minutes is correct, but the link did go to old minutes.  Ugh. Here is the link again: https://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html>
>> 
>> The link to the charter includes the changes. Perhaps your version is cached, David?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> 
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>> Adobe 
>> 
>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
>> 
>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 13:10
>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>> Subject: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
>> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 13:10
>> 
>> 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 (https://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html>). 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 <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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>