Re: CFC - Focus for Working Group

Alastair,

Thanks for sending the spreadsheet. What might be missing from the timeline
for Silver are supporting documents, and possibly Task Forces as that work
evolves.

Thanks!

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*


*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, Vice President of Accessibility at
EverFi, **Board Member and W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.




On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:06 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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 / @alastc
>