Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

+1 David.

I also think that if we manage to get 20+ new A and AA Success Criteria
published by Spring 2018 (a.k.a. WCAG 2.1) we will have made some
significant progress, and we can start working on the remaining 40 some-odd
SC after then, for a WCAG 2.2 (or Silver, or 2.3, or...) Release.

I do not think there is a value in attempting to eat the elephant in one
sitting (or delaying publication of the next-gen guidelines until all 60+
are processed), and I know that *my* focus (at least) will be on quality
over quantity, while still meeting our publishing deadline. We collectively
need to remember that the Spring 2018 deadline is but the first of more
deadlines, and that in some ways WCAG (or Silver) will never be "completed"
as new technologies and solutions (as well as potential issues) will
continue to emerge, and we face those challenges and issues head-on.

JF

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:36 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion