- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:10:02 +0000
- To: "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
See “at risk” in 6.4.1 of the process document: http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr Items that are marked “at risk” in a CR document can be removed in the PR document without returning to CR. Thanks, AWK Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility Adobe akirkpat@adobe.com http://twitter.com/awkawk On 1/3/17, 14:55, "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk> wrote: >On 03/01/2017 19:17, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote: >> Then *how* are we going to expect getting feedback and ideas on testing >> and techniques on those items that might be ‘At Risk’? > >What do you mean by at risk? > >Léonie. > > >-- >@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem > > > > >> >> >> >> ** katie ** >> >> >> >> *Katie Haritos-Shea** >> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* >> >> >> >> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****ryladog@gmail.com* >> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile* >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office: >> 703-371-5545 **|****@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/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 >> >> >> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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 1:33 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk >> <mailto: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 <http://tink.uk> Carpe diem >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 20:10:36 UTC