Re: Moving Silver Requirements to note

+1

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

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 Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:30 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> As Janina and the survey mentioned, it is a living document until the CR
> stage. *This* CFC is about whether we are happy to move it to a Note
> instead of having it as a “Draft Community Group Report”.
>
>
>
> We can change the content if the group agrees to do so, but that is not
> the focus of this CFC.
>
>
>
> On the topic you raised, (and taking chair hat off)…
>
>
>
> My understanding is that the user-requirement aspect is within the scope
> section:
>
> “*Disability Needs*: An improved measurement and conformance structure
> that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes
> particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive
> accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement
> success criteria of WCAG 2.x.”
>
>
>
> The whole document is about Silver requirements, so the scope is just as
> relevant as the section named “requirements”.
>
>
>
> In section 4, which is the ‘how’ section, the coverage aspect is addressed
> by the “Multiple ways to measure” requirement. “other ways of measuring …
> can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with
> disabilities can be included”
>
>
>
> That is the practical way that the guidelines can cover more requirements,
> and it is a thing that we can hold the eventual spec to: Did it provide
> more ways of measuring accessibility?
>
>
>
> If there is something about how the guidelines should work that is not
> covered in the requirements, that would be useful to raise for that
> section. What would that be?
>
>
>
> Also, adding something about the level of effort (e.g. “best of our
> ability”) doesn’t make it a requirement of the final standard. Of course we
> will try, but whether it is successful depends on how it is structured and
> what requirements it meets. That is the focus of the document.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lisa Seeman
>
>
>
> I apologize for doing this, and I know the silver taskforce is trying
> hard,  but I can not agree with the silver requirements
>
>
>
> My concern is that the requirements (in section 4) do not include, or even
> imply, that all user needs will be addressed to the best of our ability.
>
>
>
>  It does not include that following these requirements will
> enabled content to be as accessible as possible for all people with
> disabilities. The requirement section does not address the imbalance of
> user needs in the current guidelines, across the
> different disability groups.  (Note these are implied in the scope but not
> in the requirements. It must be in the actual requirements)
>
>
>
> Again the focus of the requirements is on measurability,   adoption into
> law,etc. But if addressing the user needs are not a requirement, what is
> the point?
>
> -1
>
>
>
> Keep well, and thanks again for the huge effort in creating this work
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:16 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday, October 5th at 12 (midday) Boston time.
>
>
>
> The Working Group has discussed moving the Silver Requirements to a group
> note, recently with this survey:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-requirements-pub/
>
> (Which includes links to the previous survey and minutes.)
>
>
>
> Last call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-ag-minutes.html#item09
>
>
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>