- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:37:00 +0000
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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