CFC this month

Hi Folks

Any CFC's made before December first will not get much attention from task force chairs.
I suggest work that requires their input is postponed until after d\Dec 1st

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 02:00:25 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea<ryladog@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

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 |ryladog@gmail.com|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile|Office: 703-371-5545 |@ryladog

 
From: White, Jason J [mailto: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] 
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 - 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.