Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

I remember when we were trying to get consensus on proceeding with this
one, the group was split and there was plenty of concern. I suggested we
proceed with it understanding that it would be at risk, with the hope that
the issues would get resolved. I've worked with the sub group dedicated to
this and I really wanted it to work.

I agree with Detlev that it appears we've kept it in as long as we could
and have done everything possible to try to make it work, including many
hours together as a group.

Unfortunately, it appears our time is up and the implementations and
maturity levels of the technology needed for this to be useful are just not
there yet. I don't think we have satisfactory resolutions or responses to
address the substantive comments.

It is a very big ask of developers at AA and currently there is no
assurance that it will help anyone, or that mature tools will be available
or become mainstream AT over the life of 2.1 which is a couple of years.

It may cause 2.1 to be be rejected or at least picked apart in some
jurisdictions.

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 Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> wrote:

> My thought is that we have already spend a LOT of time on this which,
> given the fixed deadline, takes away time for other SCs / issues where
> progress is urgently needed. I would propose NOT to discuss theses issues
> one by one in the next Telco as this will take up the entire meeting and
> will likely end with ‘leave open’ anyway, which we can’t afford.
>
> My proposal would be to have a straw poll at the outset whether we
> A - move the SC to 2.2 for more discussion and solving the issues raised
> in due course
> B - keep it on level AAA and wade through issues
> C - keep it on current level and wade through issues
>
> My own preference is for A. I want the other open SCs / issues to be
> addressed, not pushed back because of our protracted problems with this one.
> Detlev
>
> Sent from phone
>
> Am 10.01.2018 um 03:09 schrieb Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>:
>
> OK, we have 12 issues raised on 1.3.4 (Identify Common Purpose). We need
> to be able to resolve these quickly, and it will be very difficult. The
> brief summaries of the issues are below.
>
>
>
> In general, the concerns are:
>
>    1. No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but
>    I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.
>    2. Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more,
>    remove some, reference externally, or what
>    3. Security concerns/conflicts.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/672: Suggests moving to AAA due to
> lack of implementations and required support if 2.1 takes ISO path. Problem
> in Japan. (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/665: Proposes sentence structure
> change (minor)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/661: Presently there are no add-ons
> or AT supporting the SC, change to AAA (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/654: Concerned about the dilemma of
> a fixed list of purposes vs. an untestable (moving target) maintained list.
> (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/653: Suggests waiting for
> browsers/UA to possibly pick up schema.org data and then it will be time
> to ask developers to support it. (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/651: Suggests a reference to the
> HTML autofill list, or at least clarifying in understanding that the list
> will become out of date with the source. Thinks should be for HTML only
> also. (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/635: Concerned that the purposes
> need to be uniquely identifiable and referenceable. (seems solved)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/629: Wants more and better
> understanding content. Raises potential security risks. (major)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/624: “compose” / “new” question
> related to a specific metadata item in the list.
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/602: similar to 635 (seems solved)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/590: comment that raises possible
> concerns and conflicts with security requirements for sites (major –
> solved?)
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/586: List of purposes needs more
> terms (minor/major)
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>