Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

Patrick gave me a link to a mobile phone spoofer for Firefox, called User
Agent Switcher. So I can read Github easily now.

Seeing the whole thing I kind of think we should just publish what we have
approved. Many of the LV SCs are not in their most evolved forms.  I know
we took a vote, and I gave a +1, but seeing it now the incomplete SCs look
too incomplete. I'm worried they will create more confusion than stimulate
meaningful discussion.

Wayne



On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Greggs comments, which could be in the ‘At Risk’ (or some such name)
> section……
>
>
>
> ​​​​​** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <(703)%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:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 1:28 PM
> *To:* Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; David MacDonald <
> david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
>
>
>
> +1 to Gregg’s comments, which are in line with how the working group has
> historically operated in publishing drafts.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu <greggvan@umd.edu>]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 1:26 PM
> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>;
> w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
>
>
>
> I do not agree that you we should release SC for public comment that do
> not meet the criteria for an SC.
>
>
>
> if they do not qualify — they are not SC.
>
>
>
> If we want to release those that DO qualify
>
> AND ALSO get help on other ones that DON’T YET
>
>
>
> Then we could have an *additional* *section below *the ones that qualify
>  that says.
>
>    - the following are things we would like to see but they do not
>    qualify for the reasons stated under each one.
>    - if people know of ways to modify these so they would qualify - we
>    would much like to see your ideas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> X1:  SHORT NAME OF #1:    Text of the thing we would like to make into an
> SC
>
>    - reason #1  — and why               [ For example       * Not
>    testable — because it contains the phrase  “must be easy” but “easy” is not
>    a testable term ]
>    - reason #2 (if there are more than 1) — and why       [ example
>    *Not broadly applicable — because this can only be met by markup languages ]
>
>
>
>
>
> X2:  SHORT NAME OF #2:  text of 2
>
>    - reason #1 - and why
>
>
>
> etc
>
>
>
>
>
> That way we
>
>    1. don’t make it look like we can include things we can’t — and then
>    disappoint people when we drop all the ones we can’t
>    2. we get people who want them in there to give us their best effort
>    in getting them into shape
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 12:36 PM, 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>