Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft

I like David's wording, but for sake of time and resources in getting the
draft out, could those proposed SCs not quite meeting the definition of a
SC (at this point) be left in place where they are now in the draft
document now, and just be given an indicator of their status?

I think doing so will help folks understand which guidelines the TFs saw
them falling under.  Plus moving them to a location further down in the doc
could result in folks missing them - or not giving as much credence to them.

-Marc

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> 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 <(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 3:21 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
>>>
>>
>>
>