Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.


David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902


GitHub <> <>

*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Thaddeus . <>

> +1
> Thaddeus
> On Feb 16, 2017 8:35 AM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <> wrote:
>> 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:
>>    1. Deliver the FPWD on time
>>    2. Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG
>>    3. 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

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 17:50:25 UTC