Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD

+1 to the CFC


We have a small editorial clarification in the definition of loss to change to define Significant financial loss as :




Significant financial loss is devastating, with an individual's emotional wellbeing a primary casualty, and mental health also vulnerable."

>From Bruhn, A. G. (2015). Personal and social impacts of significant financial loss. Australian Journal of Management, 40(3), 459-477. 


If there is no objection we may want to add this as it makes it more clear, but we understand if it is too late

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:47:27 +0200 Jim Allan<jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote ---- 

+1 support publishing FPWD



On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Hakkinen, Mark T <mhakkinen@ets.org> wrote:
+1  ETS supports the publication of this FPWD, but has one suggestion for usability of the document:
 
 Section 0.1 includes the sentences:
 
 To differentiate new Success Criteria, they are labeled as "new" and displayed in a green box.
 
 They are labeled as "proposed" and displayed in an orange box.
 
 Searching for the word “new” takes you through 18 occurrences of the word new, while only two new SC are present. There are 96 occurrences of the word proposed while there are 26 proposed SC.
 
 To aid readers, for example those who use AT, to quickly locate the new and proposed SC via search, it would be easier to indicate that a reader can search for “[New]” or “[Proposed]”, which is how they are indicated in the text.  However, CSS content before/after are used to place the square brackets around the words, and they are not searchable with the brackets using Firefox, Chrome or Safari (which I tested). Lacking any other searchable semantic markup or text that could be used to differentiate the SC, searching can be laborious.
 
 Can this be fixed?  And if fixed, can the text in 0.1 be changed to something similar to that below?
 
 To differentiate new Success Criteria, they are labeled as "new", searchable via the text "[New]", and displayed in a green box.
 
 They are labeled as "proposed", searchable via the text "[New]" and displayed in an orange box.
 
 Thanks for considering this change.
 
 Mark
 --
 Markku (Mark) T. Hakkinen, PhD
 Head - Accessibility, Standards, and Assistive Technology Research Group
 Center for Cognitive, Accessibility, and Technology Sciences
 Educational Testing Service
 
 
 
 
 From: Kathy Wahlbin [mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:47 AM
 To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
 Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 Subject: RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
 
 +1  We support the publication of this FPWD
 
 Kathy
 CEO & Founder
 Interactive Accessibility
 
 T (978) 443-0798  F (978) 560-1251  C (978) 760-0682
 E kathyw@ia11y.com
 www.InteractiveAccessibility.com
 
 NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
 From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 2:06 PM
 To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
 Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 Subject: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
 
 Deque Systems strongly supports this CfC.
 
 JF
 
 On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
 Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time.
 
 The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1 (https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html) and basedon a survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results) and a Working Group call (http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html) where the majority of comments were
 resolved and no blocking issues remained.
 
 On the call people believed that we had reached a consensus position that the Working Group should publish the Editor's Draft as the First Publish Working Draft (FPWD). This will allow the group to meet its charter deadline. The Working Group included several SC that do not have Working Group consensus, but the Working Group did have consensus that publishing was valuable in order to get additional feedback from the public, and notes were included in the draft to point out aspects that do not have consensus at this time.
 
 If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
 
 Thanks,
 AWK
 
 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
 Adobe
 
 akirkpat@adobe.com
 http://twitter.com/awkawk
 
 
 
 
 --
 John Foliot
 Principal Accessibility Strategist
 Deque Systems Inc.
 john.foliot@deque.com
 
 Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
 
 

________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ________________________________
 





-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator

Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964