Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

I don't think that narrative is accurate regarding WCAG 2...

WCAG 2 was a consensus document between many stakeholder groups including
industry, and it had broad support including support from the Lighthouse
foundation for low vision. It did not receive one formal objection. WCAG 2
did the very best with the current state of accessibility at the time.
Naturally,  for an update, we want to look at any new developments on the
web, and also review any new research on people with disabilities. Some of
these gaps in WCAG 2, we can address in 2.1, however some of the proposed
SCs seem more like a wish list for future browsers ... which is beyond our
scope in 2.1.

I think we have to find the VENN intersection between:

1) ACCESSIBILITY: what will make a significant difference to our
stakeholders with disabilities.
2) VIABILITY: what is reasonable to expect of businesses stakeholders.
3) FEASIBILITY: what is mature enough to technically require of authoring
stakeholders.

I think WCAG did that well in 2008 and I have confidence we can do that for
2.1 in 2017.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>