Re: Simple changes for Accessibility Guidelines Charter - comments needed

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>



> On Dec 1, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
> WCAG’ers,
> 
> We have received suggestions for changes in the course of the charter (http://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter <http://www.w3.org/2016/11/proposed-ag-charter>) review that we want to share with the group for comment:
> 
> Add "Digital Publishing Interest Group: Coordinate on accessibility guidelines that impact digital publishing” as a new group to work with in Section 4.1 of the charter (discussed and provisionally agreed to on a WG call).
I would be careful of fragmentation.   Including a mention of digital publishing as a topic is great.   But thinking about separate guidelines for that topic is not good in an era where they are all merging.   This sounds like a separate document or separate guidelines with their own SC or ????  

I think the focus should be on looking at the application of the guidelines to digital publishing and ensuring that they are worded well to apply to that area.   And I think that is best done by review and comment to the main group - not by creating separate working group or separate provisions.   Very important application area - so the guidelines should work well there.  But all of them should.  
> Add  detail to “European Telecommunications Standards Institute” coordination: "Coordinate on success criteria development, particularly with regard to criteria impacting mobile use cases” to Section 4.2 of the charter.
I would check with W3 on this.  "Coordinating SC Development” has far reaching impact.   Does this mean that you can’t create any SC unless ETSI agrees?   If they create them do you include them?     Are they creating a different set of SC that we need to coordinate with?      Coordinating with another standards organization is always a good idea - as a general practice.    Coordinating on the development of individual SC is a whole other thing.     I did this once between an HFES and ISO standard and it cost us 4 years of enormous effort — just to get the two in sync.  And the two groups agreed on most everything.    And in the end — if they are the same — there is no reason for two of them.  

I don’t think this language is good to add — or that the consequences of adding it have been realized. 
> Add "National Information Society Agency(NIA), The Republic of Korea: Review of Specification” to Section 4.2 of the charter.
> There were also a number of comments related to changes that are editorial in nature (spelling errors, consistent use of terminology such as ‘recommendation-track’ instead of ‘standards-track’, and similar)
√


> We are interested in whether anyone has concerns or comments about these types of changes –please let us know!
> 
> 
> 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>