Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

+1

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 3:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> The Working Group has not made any decision that it will include all of
> the SC proposals in the FPWD and then cull or change them in response to
> feedback. This is one possible approach, with the other being to build up
> the FPWD with what the WG agrees on (and a variation whereby items that are
> largely agreed on but still have outstanding issues might be included as
> incomplete / at risk in order to get additional feedback).
>
> I favor a document that we build up as a high-quality work-product at
> every point in time, so the review can be more focused rather than dumping
> everything in and running the risk of commenters wondering if the group has
> done any editing. I think that it is ok for a limited number of items where
> the group needs additional feedback to be included in the FPWD (and
> following WD’s, which I hope to make much more frequent than in the past)
> but not everything that was proposed all at once.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 15:38
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>,
> Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
>
> I agree with Leonie's suggestion that we include the new SCs that are
> ready and add others later.
>
> I also wasn't sure what "at risk" meant, so thanks for the clarification.
> Too late, I suppose, to change it to something more user-friendly, like
> "Under Consideration" or "To Be Decided".
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:12 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <
> akirkpat@adobe.com> 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,
> 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 <(703)%20371-5545> **|****ryladog@gmail.com*
> >> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile*
> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office:
> >> 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545> **|****@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 <(613)%20235-4902>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>