Re: CFC: Silver TF Work Statement

Hey All,

I was wrong about CfC standing for Call for Comments. It is, in WCAG
anyway, a new process since TPAC 2016, that does in fact mean 'Call for
Consensus'.

I stand corrected.....:-)

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Nov 1, 2016 8:00 PM, "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 <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.
>>
>>
>>