Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

WCAG 2 left out a lot of people with disabilities. One would expect
lot of new words to include them.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
<ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then *how* are we going to expect getting feedback and ideas on testing and
> techniques on those items that might be ‘At Risk’?
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
> Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>
> NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an
> expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I
> am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that
> my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.
>
>
>
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:42 PM
> To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
>
>
>
>>>The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
>>> include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the
>>> FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
>>> as/when.
>
>
>
>
>
> That makes sense to me.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
>   Adapting the web to all users
>
>             Including those with disabilities
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2017 18:06, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> but I'm concerned that the world is watching for WCAG next, and has been
> waiting over 8 years. Is this the first thing we want to release to
> these stakeholders in 8 years?
>
>
> No.
>
>
> I think we may want to postpone our release date for the FPWD, until we
> can parse these, figure out how we are going to organize them and make
> some preliminary vetting.
>
>
> The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
> include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the
> FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
> as/when.
>
> Please don't consider delaying the timeline. Eight years is far too long as
> it is - let's not make it worse.
>
> Léonie.
>
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 19:29:36 UTC