Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

Wayne, which LV SCs are not in their most recent form

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 1:47 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>