- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:04:47 +0300
- To: Rachael Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Cc: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKExBM+iEtc1JwMfrjjRAU7yM0GHyyNrJ9cWA8CzxUSPebDR3Q@mail.gmail.com>
I think we need to get the requirement in before moving it to a note. we can edit it after but it needs to be there -1 On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rachael Montgomery < rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> 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 Monday, 5 October 2020 15:05:43 UTC