Re: CFC - Moving Silver Requirements to note

Yes  I moved my position to +1 with the understanding the issue I 
created would be reviewed at the first opportunity with all the other 
such issues.

thanks.

On 02/10/2020 13:47, Rachael Montgomery wrote:
> We do need this in note track so I also think that moving this cfc 
> forward and scheduling the content conversations makes sense.
> 
> Lisa, Steve - if you are ok with this approach, I can create a set of 
> suggested changes based on the conversation at the COGA call for review 
> and discussion at the next COGA meeting.
> 
> Rachael
> 
> On Oct 1, 2020, 7:23 PM -0400, Alastair Campbell 
> <acampbell@nomensa.com>, wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 2 October 2020 13:55:52 UTC