Re: CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

I only concur with this — if the supplement guidance does not use the word success criterion/criteria anywhere in the document. 

Calling things that are not SC     SC for which there is not yet concurrence or anything else like that is confusing and again implies that things that don’t qualify as SC are just SC that havent graduated yet.   It misleads the public and it misleads the working group and sets expectations that make it hard to fairly judge future work.  


Guidance is ok.   And even using “guidelines” is ok. 


g 

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu




> On May 23, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Resending with the “high priority” flag per our process…
> 
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday May 25rd at 12:00pm Boston time.
> 
> The Working Group has discussed the idea of providing additional guidance for accessibility beyond what is able to be included within WCAG 2.1. The idea is that success criteria proposals that cannot reach consensus or that there is insufficient time to review still have valuable information that might be able to be published for use. This idea was surveyed (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_supp/results <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FWCAG21_supp%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=Z09nKmrz3%2BdDRAlSQIgS6EnTF3tnyKnkhx6IU63M3ds%3D&reserved=0>) and discussed on the call (https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item01 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F23-ag-minutes.html%23item01&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=fuNXCihUvTIK85l38EKARZUd1nbx6vv6mPMVhkv2TNg%3D&reserved=0>) and a resolution received consensus:
> 
> RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental guidance in 1 document that is non-normative
> 
> 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 decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
> 
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=O8WWKVhUNZMueiHT4tYMcpGAwn8CCG0MbtYsKZc6jO4%3D&reserved=0>
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e1bcac07c814137cfe008d4a1f37ca4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311514529786507&sdata=O8WWKVhUNZMueiHT4tYMcpGAwn8CCG0MbtYsKZc6jO4%3D&reserved=0>