Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

On 03/01/2017 20:08, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
> On the calls we have been discussing using the FPWD to draw on the expertise and research of people out in the field to help us address some of the SC that we do not yet have adequate test techniques and at least one implementation technique for - which includes several of the proposed COGA SC.
>
> We were considering adding them to the bottom of the draft in a section called 'At Risk SC' where we would identify the SC that we would like to include if possible - but do not yet meet our criteria for getting into WCAG 2.1. We hope to gain insight and suggestion for helping us with ideas for test and technology specific techniques to enable us to move them out of the 'At Risk' category. Therefore the SC content would not be 100% dependent on the knowledge-in-the-room (as it were), and open it up to others who might already be working on these things or just have some great ideas.

Thanks Katie. That seems like a reasonable approach, but I don't 
understand why it should mean delaying the FPWD?

Those SC identified as "at risk" at the time can be included in the 
FPWD. If other SC are later identified as at risk, they can be included 
in a subsequent WD. Publishing a WD is easy - we do it every few weeks 
with the HTML spec for example.

If we delay the FPWD we also delay asking the wider community for 
feedback on those SC not identified as being "at risk.

There's also the point that Jason made - that adding proposed SC 
incrementally instead of in a single effort, will likely make things 
more manageable for anyone wanting to review them.

Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 20:33:18 UTC