Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

+1

--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Andrew Kirkpatrick schrieb am 16.02.2017 17:34:

> AGWG’ers,
> 
> We have heard an increased number of requests that we ensure the WCAG 2.1 FPWD will be released before CSUN in order to keep in line with the Charter, which specified a February date. Concerns cited include that we will open the group to criticism if we miss the deadline (the counter-concern is that the group would be open to criticism if the SC are perceived to be poorly-vetted) and that we really need additional outside feedback on many items and we won’t get that until we have a public review draft.
> 
> 
> Our feeling is that there are three factors under consideration, and that we can only satisfy two of these:
> 
>  Deliver the FPWD on time
>  Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG
>  Deliver the FPWD with a large number of the proposed SC
> 
> 
> The Chairs and Michael feel like we need to consider a compromise position. 
> 
> 
> We are asking the group to provide quick feedback on the question of whether people would approve the incorporation of a selection of SC from each TF into a FPWD draft provided that we mark the SC with a note that indicates that the SC is in a proposal stage and has not reached WG consensus, but that we would welcome feedback on the SC to help the group refine them further.
> 
> 
> If this were to happen, the chairs would prepare a review draft with ~8 new SC from each TF, and then we would have a survey sent out tomorrow that would provide a way for WG members to provide feedback on each SC, and assuming that there aren’t major objections (due to a SC not meeting the SC requirements in a profound and unresolvable way) then we would include each SC in the draft.
> 
> 
> This is a change, and it will require compromise for everyone. This requires that the group members are willing to put out a draft that explicitly states that it includes non-consensus items.
> 
> 
> What do people think? If we are going to do this we will need to move quickly.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> AWK
> 
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> 
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> 
> Adobe 
> 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 
> 
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 17:07:06 UTC