Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

While I agree that there has not been complete WG consensus for 23 of the
25 new SCs, I would also say that the Task forces worked hard on the SCs
that were submitted as issues, and by their submission as Issues, it means
they had consensus of at least the task forces that created them.

I was against the idea of releasing working drafts on a set schedule, but
since the group made that decision, then I support the group consensus to
do so.

Although there are a number of SCs which do not meet all the requirements
for SCs, I think we should go forward and see what the public says.

The other option is to wait about 9 months so that we can vet 60 success
criteria at a rate of 2 per week. And I don't think they will be that much
better at that point... and if a many  of the 60 SCs are rejected by the
public after the FPWD we will be 9 months behind.

I think the current disclaimer language strikes a good balance between
saying this is the best of our work so far, and it still has a long way to
go, and it gives the public a chance to look over our shoulders before
everything is baked in.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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 Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:47 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Dick [mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 11:30 AM
>
> Let me clarify. Only one or two members of the LVTF could participate in
> the discussion on github because the interface is not accessible and we
> were given no instructions on how to participate in an alternative format.
>
> The 2.1 document is pretty good. I will vote for it if the document if it
> is made clear that members with the Low Vision Task Force could not
> participate in the discussion, and therefore, the effected  parties are not
> present in the discussion.
>
> *[Jason] Wayne’s last comment clarifies his concern. It echos my own
> concern that this draft is destined to include proposals which have not
> undergone thorough review and development by the working group, and which
> have not been deemed by consensus as suitable for inclusion in the
> document. “Suitable for inclusion” does not mean finished or without
> problems – but it should entail some degree of review and oversight,
> together with a formal decision to include each of the proposals, or to
> include it with a specific note identifying issues remaining to be
> addressed.*
>
> *The draft already admits these facts. It admits, furthermore, that only
> two of the proposals achieved some degree of consensus regarding their
> inclusion. I think it sends a poor signal to the public about this working
> group’s internal processes, as Katie intimated in her comment last week.
> Now, Wayne proposes to attach a note stating that some Task Force
> participants were unable to engage in wider working group review and
> development of proposals after they were submitted – again, very bad from a
> messaging point of view, and not a good reflection of how the process needs
> to work if it is ultimately to deliver a W3C Recommendation.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>