- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:09:23 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
LGTM. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem On 10/08/2016 17:41, Shane McCarron wrote: > So, to be clear, the final version of the proposed wording is: > > This specification has no defined user interface. Consequently, > there are no specific accessibility requirements on implementations. > However, to the extent that an implementation provides user > interactions to support this specification, the implementation must > ensure that the interface is exposed to the platform accessibility > API. Moreover, implementors should take into consideration the needs > of their users with varying abilities when designing solutions that > implement this specification. For example, the use of biometric > authentication techniques should be varied enough to allow for > people with widely differing physical abilities. > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk > <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote: > > On 09/08/2016 14:12, Shane McCarron wrote: > > Nice! Friendly amendment? I think that "widely differing physical > abilities" is more poetic than "widely different physical > abilities". > What do you think? > > +1 > > > Léonie. > > > -- > @LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk> Carpe diem > > > > > -- > Shane McCarron > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 18:10:02 UTC