- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:24:07 -0500
- To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZDO1S4jSwpKxfDPNRZNHj7bCUbz+=j5qPWTnkKJqYqvQ@mail.gmail.com>
For those who may have trouble with a Google sheets... here's a summary Change of content 112 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/112> 2 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2> PASS Graphic Contrast (Minimum) 100 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/100> 9 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9> User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum) 128 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/128> 10 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10> PASS Minimize user errors 97 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/97> 13 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/13> Timeouts 116 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/116> 14 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/14> Plain language (Miniumum) 135 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/135> 30 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30> Provide Support 129 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/129> 32 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32> Undo 38 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/38> Interruptions (minimum) 98 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/98> 47 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/47> Familiar Design (Minimum) 121 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/121> 49 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/49> Extra Symbols 115 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/115> 50 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/50> Linearization 89 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89> 58 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58> Target Size 60 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60> Pointer gestures 132 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/132> 61 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/61> PASS Touch with Assistive Technology 131 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/131> 63 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/63> PASS Accidental Activation 111 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/111> 65 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/65> PASS Pointer inputs with additional sensors 144 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/144> 66 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/66> PASS Device sensors 138 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/138> 67 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/67> PASS Speech Input 139 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/139> 68 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/68> Single key shortcut alternative 133 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/133> 69 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/69> PASS Orientation 142 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/142> 70 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/70> PASS Popup Interference 75 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/75> Printing 141 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/141> 76 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/76> Resize content 120 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/120> 77 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77> PASS Adapting Text 124 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/124> 78 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78> PASS 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 3:21 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I've updated the Spreadsheet SO the summary page has all of the > Requirements and checkboxes for each one. > > tinyurl.com/jmo9st4 > > Of the 25 proposed SCs, I think 11 have pass all the requirements. > > > > 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 3:02 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL < > ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That works! >> >> >> >> ** 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:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 2:47 PM >> *To:* Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> >> *Cc:* Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; Jason J White < >> jjwhite@ets.org>; David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Dick < >> wayneedick@gmail.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> >> *Subject:* Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft >> >> >> >> "Incomplete Candidates" ? >> >> >> >> JF >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> >> wrote: >> >> I don’t like the “at risk” title >> >> >> >> That sounds like they are IN but there is a risk they will fall out. >> >> >> >> The ones described are not in — and we don’t know how to get them in >> (yet) — and we are asking for ideas. >> >> >> >> perhaps call them >> >> >> >> *Other things we are exploring that do not (yet) qualify as Success >> Criteria for the reasons listed for each* >> >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 20, 2017, at 1:36 PM, 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 <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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> John Foliot >> >> Principal Accessibility Strategist >> >> Deque Systems Inc. >> >> john.foliot@deque.com >> >> >> >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >> > >
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 20:24:44 UTC