Re: Re[3]: Co-ordinating SC feedback

That's great David, please do sign up for the ones you want on the wiki. 
InterAccess - Accessible UX
-------- Original message --------From: David MacDonald <> Date: 07/12/2016  16:11  (GMT+00:00) To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <> Cc: Joshue O Connor <>, WCAG <> Subject: Re: Re[3]: Co-ordinating SC feedback 
I can manage many of the 11 low vision ones if the team wants. I was not on the LVTF but am familiar enough with the issues that I can probably identify the ones that fit our requirements for SCs
Every success criteria we accept for 2.1 will need to meet these in order to be consistent with the existing WCAG 
David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc.Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn    Adapting the web to all users            Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <> wrote:
I have signed up to Manage: Accessibility Metadata  #82 ( ) on the Wiki page (at   ​​​​​   * katie * Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) Cell: 703-371-5545 | | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog From: [] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 10:15 AM
To:; Laura Carlson <>
Subject: Re[3]: Co-ordinating SC feedback Thanks for stepping up Laura and talking a few SCs :-) E'one else - please do point your browser at  Appreciated. Josh ------ Original Message ------From: "" <>To: "" <>Sent: 07/12/2016 13:17:40Subject: Re[2]: Co-ordinating SC feedback Hi Alastair and all, Yes - I really like this direction, and Alastair thanks for taking a lead on this, and to David for previous work. You guys have mentioned an Excel spreadsheet and I'm notaverse to that but, I just don't recall seeing it. We do need to work off something that e'one can see. I'm concerned also about the accessibility of the tool/platform that we use and agree that Table wiki markup may not the best option as things can break easily.  The chairs will need to discuss this general 'SC Managers' approach in more detail but at the very least - to get the ball rolling it would not hurt to quickly get a sense of those in the group who are willing and able to ramp up this SC review work. So with this in mind I've set up a draft 'SC Managers' page in our wiki, not with a table but just a simple page where people can add their names, and list SCs they wish to manage. There is also a brief guide. [1]To get this going, I have added a couple of names of working group members who have 'signed up' to manage SCs (Alastair, Glenda, Wayne, David),along with the candidate SCs they have choosen. Please feel free to add yourself and any SC you wish to work on. The list is available here [2]Alastair, I've incorporated some of your suggestions into the 'guide' - very helpful. IMO the managers role - as I see it, is someone who can co-ordinate the feedback and help iterate the SC, incorporate feedback, make edits etc. It does not have to be the originator of the SC, and that may even be preferable as it could inject objectivity into proceedings, as well as a fresh perspective.The SC manager would also look for similarities/synergies etc with other candidate SCs and have other duties suggested in the guide. In terms of scheduling reviews - I like the idea of Phases/Milestones - we are currently in an provisional review/acceptance phase.If 20 people from the group take  even 3 SCs each then we can make progress steadily. This should be a manageable number for anyone. Thanks for input all - this is a draft very useful and hope it is workable for e'one. Comments/suggestions welcome [1] [2]   Joshue O Connor | - Accessible UX 

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2016 16:30:58 UTC