RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:32 PM

I’m not sure I like the term “at risk”.

I think that it would be better to call them other provisions we would like to see but we do not have qualifying language or something like that.

[Jason] I concur with Gregg’s comment. “At risk” is more appropriate when you’re later in the development process and having to make difficult inclusion/exclusion decisions. For the first working draft, though, I think it’s appropriate to separate the proposals we think are on track for meeting our standard for inclusion from those that need a lot more work.
And whatever we do, we need to specify why they are down in that list.

  *   Not testable  the way it’s currently worded
  *   doesn’t apply to everything the way it’s currently worded
  *    to technology specific the way it’s currently worded
  *   etc.
[Jason] Yes, exactly.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________