- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:04:01 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <93e064c9-a856-a54f-325d-c916cfef4050@spellmanconsulting.com>
Also late to the party, but +1 on the compromise. On 2/17/2017 11:42 AM, Glenda Sims wrote: > I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to be on record as saying: > > +1 on comprimise > support clearly marking those with consensus at publishing, and > clearly marking those without consensus with links to additional > information. > > Glenda > > P.S. Thanks to every single one of you for your efforts in moving > accessibility forward. > > glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com <http://deque.com> > |512.963.3773 > > /web for everyone. web on everything./ - w3 goals > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL > <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote: > > We haven’t re-met, we have had meeting on this… > > ** katie ** > > *Katie Haritos-Shea** > **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* > > *Cell: 703-371-5545 <tel:%28703%29%20371-5545> > **|****ryladog@gmail.com* > <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn > Profile* > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office: > 703-371-5545 <tel:%28703%29%20371-5545> **|****@ryladog* > <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>* > > *NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be > an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I > identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC > Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the > opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.** > > *From:*Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>] > *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 10:45 AM > *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca > <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> > *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; WCAG > Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org <mailto:team-wcag-editors@w3.org>> > > > *Subject:* Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. > > Thanks David, but if the group meant to discuss this hasn’t even > met yet I’m thinking that this might be a “second public working > draft” item… > > Thanks, > > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility > > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > > http://twitter.com/awkawk > > *From: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca > <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> > *Date: *Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:43 > *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> > *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, WCAG > Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org <mailto:team-wcag-editors@w3.org>> > *Subject: *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. > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/142 > <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/142> > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:%28613%29%20235-4902> > > LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > /Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > /Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick > <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> 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 > > akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > > http://twitter.com/awkawk > >
Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 17:04:38 UTC