W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

RE: CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:21:40 +0000
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
CC: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR07MB345760BC27460561CA4D34CFABFE0@BN6PR07MB3457.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
+1 to both the CfC and to Gregg’s point. The proposed document was described at the meeting yesterday as explanatory, consistently with its non-normative status. This entails that the advice it provides should not masquerade as WCAG success criteria, that it does not need to be reliably testable, and that it can help authors achieve accessibility in designing and implementing Web content in ways that extend beyond the normative guidance we give in WCAG itself.

It is also important that preparation of this document should not delay completion of WCAG 2.1.

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:51 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1
Importance: High

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<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>



On May 23, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto: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>


________________________________

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.

________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 14:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC