- From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:55:47 +0100
- To: Rachael Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>, Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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