Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

> But it is done in the context of business and target market, costs, and profits.
>
> Evaluating priority of features based on equity -  is much more complex — and - I think it may be gordian.

I agree, I’m not suggesting that.

Assume that we have a set of issues based on a WCAG 3 audit, they may be classified at a basic level within the guidelines (similar to A, AA, AAA).

The organisation stakeholders have their feature / task priorities.

This process would be to combine the two in order to help prioritise (or measure) the accessibility issues.

We do this kind of assessment a lot, and I’m sure others do as well, it isn’t particularly difficult to do.

The issue severity sub-group focused on whether and how you could include severity within the guidelines.  We thought the best way was at the test level, and to focus on critical issues (rather than categorising everything).

We still have a bunch of questions to answer on that:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/c4f15d75f75688e4b9b8ec45a4c7f7aad4829822/guidelines/index.html#critical-issues

Which is what the new sub-group will pick up, as well as looking at the contextual version as well.

-Alastair