Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

I've added a Pull Request for the DPUB metadata AAA SC. I think it should
be in the FPWD if possible also.

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 11:34 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <>

> 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,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe

Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 15:44:31 UTC