Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

On 03/01/2017 20:10, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> 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 Andrew. It's more that (until Katie's reply) I wasn't sure what 
"at risk" meant for this WG - in other words what determines whether a 
proposed SC is at risk in the first place.

Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem



>
> 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 20:37:34 UTC