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

RE: CFC - Add Orientation SC to Editor's Draft

From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:28:53 +0000
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0e434b792d214321b76584544dc89bed@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
The discussion thread Jason is referring to is here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/1094.html


And the proposals to address objections were either:

“A mechanism is available to view content in all display orientations without loss of essential content or functionality, except where the display orientation is fixed by the user agent or is essential for usage or meaning.”

Or

“Content is not locked to a specific display orientation, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential for use of the content or by user request.”

Steve

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:08 AM
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - Add Orientation SC to Editor's Draft

During the CfC period, I raised a significant issue with the version of the proposal that was included in the survey and the CfC itself. Several options for addressing the concern were discussed on the list.

What now goes into the editor’s draft? If I had thought that I needed to write a separate message to object to the CfC so that one of the amended versions of the proposal could be put forward, I would have done so. However, I took the view that raising an issue that was considered substantive by several working group participants in a timely manner would be enough to prevent the original (unamended) proposal from moving forward. At the very least, there should be an editorial note in the draft to alert reviewers. The issues raised also need to be addressed, as I think the proposals discussed on list successfully do; but, obviously, I don’t support the version of the proposal that was surveyed.

From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 4:53 AM
To: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CFC - Add Orientation SC to Editor's Draft

AGWG’ers,

As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to this CfC, this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group. There was one objection from James Nurthen, details of which are available in the related survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATF_orientation/results<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FMATF_orientation%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=glFIeiqSGTPDoJ%2BLPU68S45cJnmEiA0jCiz%2Bbk7F7d4%3D&reserved=0>).
This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>

Thanks,
AWK


Marc Johlic wrote:
+1

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>> wrote:
+1

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=7dx%2FsEiSh%2FQ9%2FiZkghFokZC0DYhr%2BfQ23anVaZ6jJSk%3D&reserved=0>    |    512.963.3773<tel:%28512%29%20963-3773>

web for everyone. web on everything. -  w3 goals

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>> wrote:
Call For Consensus — ends Monday  June 12th at 1:00pm Boston time.

The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new Success Criterion for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: "Orientation" with the goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.

SC TEXT:

"Content is not locked to a specific display orientation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fdisplay-orientation.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=t6IwPIG%2FLjz0EZxx3NycFGdO7unDWFLzWU6j0bBkvGQ%3D&reserved=0>, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fessential.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=x6xHDKfZv0nFQUARebdujcTZmLkz2BIWWBidH6%2Fbq70%3D&reserved=0> for use of the content."

Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATF_orientation/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FMATF_orientation%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=PvVVK56wL5Awk1bMKocCkr73mJma0NWHHxsCKxY9avQ%3D&reserved=0>
Call minutes: http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F06%2F08-ag-minutes.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=30OhASyGBazVdPqLLuknsAST8iOfwDuXJXhI8%2Fz%2BNrA%3D&reserved=0>
GIT Hub: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/70<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F70&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=7ro12AOsj6nV%2BgLADMQP9eIuVz17o%2BEPxox9dSaRKrU%3D&reserved=0>
The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation_ISSUE-70/guidelines/#orientation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2F%23orientation&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cf759e2658dd94287c06208d4b239cbb9%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636329408691729965&sdata=zxQ%2Fi26RVjIE4fR86%2BU%2FT7s0oub0i7%2BBeAoAd9pqAy8%3D&reserved=0>

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,
--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie



--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie

________________________________

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 Tuesday, 13 June 2017 13:29:38 UTC

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