RE: CFC - Moving Silver Requirements to note

Hi Lisa, Steve,

The current situation is that if the CFC does not pass the requirements stand as they are, just in the current format and location.

No one is disagreeing that updates are needed, how about we agree to schedule a round of updates after the FPWD?

This isn't the only update, and we should give it the time to discuss and agree. A CFC isn't the place for that.

I suggest any updates are posted on the Silver repo, like these ones:
https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Requirements


Then we can survey those and do another CFC for the content updates.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org> 
Sent: 01 October 2020 16:12
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: CFC - Moving Silver Requirements to note

-1

Sorry to potentially cause a delay but if the text:

"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."

was moved to the Requirements section from Scope my concern would be met. And perhaps part of Lisa's? This may seem obvious but the requirements should actually call out user needs / requirements as the starting point.

Could this be done with less process overhead than a significant change.

Steve


On 30/09/2020 23:22, Lisa Seeman wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.nomensa.com>
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
>

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2020 23:23:21 UTC