- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:04:11 +0000
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I tend to agree that the process is confusing at the moment. It's difficult to know what to review, where to comment or when to respond to a survey. When a decision is taken on a call or at a meeting, it's supposed to be sent out to the entire WG as a Call For Consensus (CFC). Only if the CFC passes is the decision confirmed and enacted upon. This may be happening, but if so I must admit I've missed it somewhere in all the emails and Github comments. Léonie -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 09/02/2017 13:46, lisa.seeman wrote: > this process is not really working. There is a huge curve for people to > either understand the wcag constraints or to understand the new > disabilities and how they use the web. Our methodology relies on > extensive research and it gets lost in the disjointed github comment. > > After 2.1 first draft is out I suggest we have a dedicated call on each > SC or use need where we focus on understand the issues, talk though the > use cases and then move on to solving issues with the wording. I don't > think they need to be on the main WCAG call, but people should sign up > on which SC they are interested in joining that subcall. After the call > the new wording can go to a discussion on the list and then a call for > consensus , but people should vote if they were on the call, involved in > drafting the SC or at least read all the relevant minutes > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > >
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 14:04:50 UTC