- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:00:25 -0400
- To: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxEcXLHQbE79UBzh7hEvAWOdMca8Mij=tLznS872vqhydw@mail.gmail.com>
I would also like to note that CfC were implemented to allow for assynchronous participation and involvement, for folks who could not make the calls. And CfC is a 'Call for comments', not a call for 'Can you live with this'. Gregg made a comment. If you are changing the process of CfC please let the group vote on that. Katie Haritos-Shea 703-371-5545 On Nov 1, 2016 7:47 PM, "Gregg Vanderheiden RTF" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > I already said that this was not a MUST HAVE (see below) — so we are > already in a “can live with” situation. > > G > > > ( I would advise that we look at broadening the language soon however to > get things pointed in the right direction and to engage people that are > thinking future (and we need) but that won’t be interested in editing/ > adding another SC. ) > > > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: > > I don’t think that the existing statement is ignoring future technology > advance, it is just being very open-ended: > "These guidelines will address current technological and cultural web > accessibility requirements and provide a base for continued evolution of > the guidelines.” > > As this has been surveyed for feedback and discussed on the call as well, > the question that I need to ask Gregg is whether you can live with it as > written. This is the key question for EVERY CfC because we kick off the CfC > when the chairs feel that there has been opportunity for discussion on a > topic (list discussion, survey, telecon) and a group consensus has > emerged. It is not the time to offer minor tweaks, it is the time to ask > “Can I live with this?”. > > As this is a simple work statement, we can change this at any time, so I’m > not particularly worried about this getting changed if it needs to. I’m > more worried about our ability to efficiently execute CfC’s without needing > to restart the review clock for small changes that may not be essential. > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com > http://twitter.com/awkawk > > From: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 16:28 > To: "'White, Jason J'" <jjwhite@ets.org>, CAE-Vanderhe < > gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting. > com> > Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > Subject: RE: CFC: Silver TF Work Statement > Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 16:29 > > +1 – I also like Gregg’s second edits > > > > > > ** katie ** > > *Katie Haritos-Shea* > *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* > > *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|**ryladog@gmail.com* > <ryladog@gmail.com>*|**Oakton, VA **|**LinkedIn Profile* > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*|**Office: 703-371-5545 > <703-371-5545> **|**@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> > > *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <jjwhite@ets.org>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 1, 2016 4:14 PM > *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; Jeanne Spellman < > jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> > *Cc:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > *Subject:* RE: CFC: Silver TF Work Statement > > +1 to Gregg’s paragraph and to his partial but insightful list of upcoming > technological developments. > > *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org > <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 1, 2016 4:10 PM > *To:* Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> > *Cc:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: CFC: Silver TF Work Statement > > Sounds fine to me. > > Was just trying to make it sound like more than just "and future > technologies” that sounds more like boiler plate. Was trying to point > to at least one development (perhaps the most disruptive development) that > really calls for us to rethink accessibility going forward. But we also > need to look at the marriage of content and authorship and user agents. > soooo > > how about the following to stimulate with out focusing on just what I > had. > > I think this will be the most read paragraph — and it is good to get > people thinking broadly ( I think just saying Future tech will not inspire > any thought — nor inspire any forward thinking people or technologists to > join us - which we need. ) > > but this is not a MUST HAVE if people are not comfortable adding it. I > just think it makes the objective more interesting — and get us thinking > beyond “fixing/adding SC” . > > Objective > The objective of the task force is to perform preliminary development of a > new version of Accessibility Guidelines following a research-focused, > user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible > outcome. Code-named "Silver", these guidelines will address the process of > making content and functionality accessible to people with disabilities, > including the roles of content authoring, user agent support, and authoring > tool support. These guidelines will address current technological and > cultural web accessibility requirements, but also look to where the web > and broadening internet technologies are headed (conversational interfaces, > the merging of content and authoring, access beyond http, custom user > agents, and more), in order to provide a base for continued evolution of > the guidelines. > > > > *gregg* > > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting. > com> wrote: > > I like the idea, although I don't think that verbal and conversational > interfaces should have a special callout, as that implies that it would be > the focus of new technologies we are addressing. We certainly want to > include them, but not to the exclusion of others. It brings too much > attention to them, IMO. > How about this language? > These guidelines will address technological and cultural web accessibility > requirements. These guidelines strive to anticipate where the web and other > internet technologies are headed so that the guidelines can continue to > evolve. > > > > > > > > > On 11/1/2016 1:11 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > Friendly amendment > > I think that the objective should contain something that relates to > future technologies. > > Objective > The objective of the task force is to perform preliminary development of a > new version of Accessibility Guidelines following a research-focused, > user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible > outcome. Code-named "Silver", these guidelines will address the process of > making content and functionality accessible to people with disabilities, > including the roles of content authoring, user agent support, and authoring > tool support. These guidelines will address current technological and > cultural web accessibility requirements, but also look to where the web > and broadening internet technologies are headed, including verbal and > conversational interfaces, in order to and provide a base for continued > evolution of the guidelines. > > *gregg* > > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> > wrote: > > +1 to this CfC > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com > http://twitter.com/awkawk > > *From: *"josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> > *Reply-To: *"josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> > *Date: *Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 12:46 > *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > *Subject: *CFC: Silver TF Work Statement > *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 12:43 > > CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday Nov 3rd at 5:00pm Boston time. > > This is a proposed work statement for the Silver TF that was surveyed, > discussed on the WG call, and approved (http://www.w3.org/2016/11/01- > wai-wcag-minutes.html). > > The original TF work statement can be seen: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ > GL/task-forces/silver/work-statement > > 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 > > Joshue O Connor | Director > *InterAccess.ie <http://interaccess.ie/> - Accessible UX* > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 Wednesday, 2 November 2016 00:01:04 UTC