Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

+1 for the approach of grabbing 8 or so well crafted and more mature SC 
from each group.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034

From:   Andrew Kirkpatrick <>
To:     WCAG <>
Cc:     WCAG Editors <>
Date:   2017-02-16 08:35 AM
Subject:        Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

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 

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 

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 


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:35:10 UTC