W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: CFC - Focus for Working Group

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:04:34 +0000
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <91A4C3E2-6A92-49EF-AEDE-A7ACA9ECA877@nomensa.com>
Hi everyone,

As Andrew said, we’ll discuss this on Tuesday. I just wanted to outline some of the factors we need to take into account.

The decision we were trying to get to is whether to do a 2.2, but that is a complex one because it is very dependent on method, timeline, and allocation of effort.

We’ve discussed what could go into a 2.2:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-possibles/results

https://www.w3.org/2019/01/29-ag-minutes.html#item05


We’ve looked at the potential gap between now and Silver’s current planned rec date, and whether a 2.2 helps with that:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cK6iDM5QzwyGQK-3L4RBFK7dPGwdPRybqIJMvtOvMSo/edit#gid=0


We’ve drafted the process and SC acceptance criteria:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements


We’ve discussed whether we think there is time for a 2.2:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process/results

https://www.w3.org/2019/02/12-ag-minutes.html#item12


The group was very much in favour of a 2.2 from the survey results:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22_yesno/results

The negatives were a comment about the acceptance criteria, and Katie has consistently said we should move whole-sale to Silver.

Katie wasn’t the only one who wanted to prioritise Silver though, in the prioritisation question it was fairly evenly split between 2.2 & silver (after the 2.1 docs). Thankfully it is not an either/or decision, we can do both, it is a matter of apportioning the group’s effort appropriately.

What the time apportioned to Silver would consist of has not been defined yet, there are several options & ways that could work (split time and/or calls and/or group). It wasn’t really the focus of the CFC as it needs discussion & planning. That would be a next step after this decision.

NB: We have been trying to get Silver on the agenda for the AG more often, but the time is proving difficult to arrange.

After a multi-week, multi-survey and multi-discussion process we created a relatively simple CFC, and all the links above were available in the survey that was linked to from the CFC.

I strongly encourage people to review the build-up to this CFC, it appears that most of the objections (except Katie’s) were not about the core purpose of the CFC.  These are still valid objections of course, but for making the decision we need the decision makers to be aware of the context, and that doesn’t fit in a CFC email.

I look forward to the conversation on Tuesday, this will be on the agenda!

Have a good weekend,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 17:04:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:29 UTC