RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

+1 to the variation: A FPWD with what the WG agrees on plus a section of items that still have outstanding issues or are “at risk”

Keeping them separate will allow reviewers with limited resources to focus on the primary section while allowing those interested and able to also review the additional items.

Rachael

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:02 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>; tink@tink.uk; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

+1


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt 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 3:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 15:38
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, "tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>" <tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>>, Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk







On 1/3/17, 14:55, "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk<mailto: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<http://tink.uk> Carpe diem
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ​​​​​** katie **
>>
>>
>>
>> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
>> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Cell: 703-371-5545<tel:(703)%20371-5545> **|****ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>*
>> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile*
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office:
>> 703-371-5545<tel:(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<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:42 PM
>> *To:* Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>>
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<tel:(613)%20235-4902>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd> <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com<http://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>
>> <mailto: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> <http://tink.uk<http://tink.uk/>> Carpe diem
>>
>>
>>
>