Understanding dismay

Mike,
Can you explain why this process is dismaying?

FYI, we changed to using the CFC process which includes an extended period of time for respondents around the world to have time to respond to decisions without attending a call that may be at 2am for them. All of the CFC responses are recorded in the W3C’s system for a permanent record.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Director, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk



From: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:43 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:42 AM


EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.


+1 Thanks.

Also, a bit dismayed that we're voting via email.

Mike

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:17 AM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>> wrote:
+1

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:12 PM


CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
Hi everyone,

Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday 2nd April at 5pm Boston time.

The Working Group has agreed (in meetings) to re-start the Candidate Recommendation stage for WCAG 2.2.

This CFC is to approve that transition into CR, including the changes made since the last one.

There are updates to Target Size and Focus Appearance, which can be viewed here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files


These two SCs will be marked ‘at risk’, with a fallback to the previous versions. If that fall back is also not agreed, then it would result in removal. (For Focus Appearance, the fallback would be the previous text at AAA level.)
The fallbacks for ‘at risk’ are subject to approval from W3C management, we would return to the group if it is not approved.

Minor changes since the last CR:

  *   A non-normative change to Focus Not Obscured (adjusting the notes) was agreed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3083/files

  *   Accessibility Authentication had “(minimum)” added to the name:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3132/files


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/>




--

Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions
Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer
https://civicactions.com<https://civicactions.com/>    |  https://accessibility.civicactions.com<https://accessibility.civicactions.com/>
http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford