Re: proposed clarification statement. was CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD

Hi Peter,

we are fine with Michael Cooper taking responsibility of addressing our concerns while preparing the document for publishing.
It would be very helpful to post the proposed resolution on Github issue, so that all the discussion is on one thread.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1111

Thanks
Avneesh Singh
COO, DAISY Consortium

From: Korn, Peter 
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 2:01
To: Avneesh Singh ; Andrew Kirkpatrick ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
Cc: Korn, Peter 
Subject: Re: proposed clarification statement. was CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD

Avneesh,

 

Thank you for your review and for filing an issue with a proposed text addition.  I have tagged that issue with the “Challenges with Conformance” label so it will appear in searches for that label.

 

First, in case it wasn’t clear from other discussion on this (which I believe were captured in the minutes from our 14Apr AGWG meeting), the current text that starts the section “Status of this Document” – that says “This document is a draft of a potential specification…” – is a known error resulting from the template used to clearly mark visually that what is at https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/ is an “Unofficial draft”.  This template is what causes display of the green banner at the left top edge of the web page that says “Unofficial Draft”, as well as the light red watermark that repeats diagonally across the page “UNOFFICIAL DRAFT”.  That text will be changed upon publishing to make clear that this is a Note – which is non-normative – and not a Specification.  I believe Michael Cooper will be writing that text, so I cannot quote to you here precisely what it will be.

 

Second, as per the AGWG Charter, (and specifically the Deliverables noted there), the only chartered deliverable in the WCAG 2.x family is WCAG 2.2, where the only updates contemplated are to the Success Criteria “to better address needs for users with low vision or cognitive disabilities, and users of touch and mobile interfaces”, NOT to the conformance model.  This is further emphasized by referencing the “WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion Acceptance Criteria” that work on WCAG 2.2 will need to be in accordance with.  This is in contrast to the plan for the “New standard to succeed WCAG 2.x”, which explicitly notes it will “use a different conformance model”.

 

Thus I believe your proposed text is not only not needed, but may be mildly inappropriate (given the Note status of this doc).  Further, I am loath to add or change anything in the document that might then re-open the doc for another round of review, given the multiple review cycles we’ve had to date, and the strong feelings that discussion of conformance often brings to the fore.

 

Perhaps if needed, Michael’s text-to-come stating that this is a non-normative Note might simply remind people that, as this is a Note, it does not (and cannot) contain any normative changes to any W3C specification.

 

 

Regards,

 

Peter

-- 

Peter Korn | Director, Accessibility | Amazon Lab126

pkorn@amazon.com

 

From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:07 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] proposed clarification statement. was CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD
Resent-From: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:06 AM

 

      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
     

 

Dear all,

 

We have reviewed the document for digital publishing. Our proposal for a clarification statement is at:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1111

 

With regards

Avneesh Singh

COO, DAISY Consortium

 

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick 

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 2:47

To: Chuck Adams ; Nicaise Dogbo (CELA) ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD

 

As a former survey-maker, the survey close date was meaningless. We made decisions on calls and in CFC’s and don’t recall ever closing the survey as a deadline for comment.

 

Thanks,

AWK

 

Andrew Kirkpatrick

Head of Accessibility

Adobe 

 

akirkpat@adobe.com

http://twitter.com/awkawk

 

From: Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com> on behalf of Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:05 PM
To: "Nicaise Dogbo (CELA)" <nidogbo@microsoft.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:05 PM

 

I’m new to the group, here is my understanding of why there is a discrepancy.  Other more experienced chairs or former chairs can correct me.

 

We want to keep the survey open through the day of the due date we advertise (such as 10am of Tuesday of some calendar date).  I think what happens with our current survey tool is that the survey closes at the midnight of the date selected, such that if we were to select Tuesday of some calendar date, the survey would close at the morning midnight instance of that selected date, and that the survey would not be available for the remainder of the day to answer.  AND/OR the question becomes “for which time zone”, as we frequently have individual participating in the exact same call but a day ahead of other members in the same call.

 

Given that we have many members (including myself) who like the ability to answer surveys at the last minute, we must make a selection of SOME date which comes after our desired closed date, in order to ensure that we don’t get premature closure of the survey, and accidently exclude members who are in different time zones and may be a calendar day ahead.

 

I’m new to survey construction, but my intent is to pick a closure day well past our desired date to ensure that I don’t exclude members who are as far from the time zone of the survey tool, and may want the ability to answer at the last minute.

 

Regards,

Charles Adams

 

From: Nicaise Dogbo (CELA) <nidogbo@microsoft.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD

 

Hi,

 

Can someone please explain the difference between the two deadline dates of 4/28/2020 for the questionnaire and this CFC date of 4/20/2020?

Sorry I am a bit confused J

 

Thx,

 

Nd

 

 

From: Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:16 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CFC - Approve Conformance Challenges for FPWD

 

Call For Consensus – ends Monday April 20th at 9am Boston time.

 

The Working Group has discussed the draft Conformance Challenges Note.

 

The version that would be published can be viewed here:

https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/

 

NB: The reference to draft “specification” will be changed to “note” prior to publication.

 

The Pull Request in github shows the changes since the last review:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1109

 

This was discussed via surveys:

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Conformance-Challenges-FPWD3/

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Conformance-Challenges-FPWD2/

 

And the minutes from the last call are here:

https://www.w3.org/2020/04/14-ag-minutes.html

 

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.

 

Kind regards,

Charles Adams