- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:51:37 -0500
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, McSorley <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
- Cc: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, Smith <smithjs@atos.net>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <58ddcaf1-a74b-f400-d1df-787eecb44674@w3.org>
Hi Lisa - on the process, because there is an open CfC to publish, to request a "friendly amendment" you should respond on the CfC thread with your vote whether or not to publish, then add to it "there was one last thing that got overlooked in the rush and ask it be added if at all possible". The chairs will have to determine if adding it would invalidate the consensus to publish, but could add it if they think it doesn't. I don't see the proposed definition in this mail chain so I can't give an initial evaluation, though in general a definition in support of a proposed SC that's already in there seems ok. Michael On 2/22/2017 2:49 AM, lisa.seeman wrote: > > Hi Michael > Is there any way to include the definition, or some version of it, > that EA provided for "significant financial loss? > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > > > ---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:44:49 +0200 > *McSorley<jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>* wrote ---- > > Is there any way to include the definition, or some version of it, > that EA provided for "significant financial loss?" > > > Jan McSorley > VP, Accessibility > Psychometrics and Testing Services > > 400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite E > Austin, TX 78753 > M - (512) 673-9569 > Twitter: @Jan_McSorley > Skype: jan.mcsorley > www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley> > Learn more at pearson.com <http://pearson.com> > Pearson > > > *We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make > information technology fully accessible to people with > disabilities. It can be done ... it must be done ... it will be > done!* > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, lisa.seeman > <lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote: > > Jim, Can you put this change in the github issue so we do not > lose it for the next version > > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > > > ---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:57:35 +0200 *Michael > Pluke<Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com > <mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>>* wrote ---- > > Hi Lisa > > Presumably your comment, which I agree with, refers to > these definitions in general? > > Jim’s use of brackets instead of commas in a few places > doesn’t change the definitions, it just makes them easier > to read. Your comment applies to the originally proposed > definitions and Jim’s improved versions. > > Best regards > > Mike > > PS There seems to be (at least) two different ways to > refer to ,, () and []. In my (UK) understanding both the > latter two are brackets (round and square) and that > whether you use commas or brackets you are putting the > text in between in parenthesis. It seems that in other > (US?) understandings () are referred to as parentheses. > Doing a quick Google search leads to much confusion on > these namings! My UK-tuned brain had to read all of text > behind GrammarBook.com’s statement “Parentheses and > brackets must never be used interchangeably” > <http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp> to > have any clue what they were on about!! > > *From:*lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com > <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>] > *Sent:* 21 February 2017 16:00 > *To:* Smith <smithjs@atos.net <mailto:smithjs@atos.net>> > *Cc:* public-cognitive-a11y-tf > <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > <mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>> > *Subject:* RE: last changes? > > i think we need the definition to be more testable > > such as what is a significant financial loss > > i guese it will be cleaner for the next verison > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, > Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > ---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:10:11 +0200 > *Smith<*<mailto:smithjs@atos.net>smithjs@atos.net > <mailto:smithjs@atos.net>*>*wrote ---- > > Hi All, > > How do these seem? Mostly the use of parenthesis to > help with the “comma overload” plus an extension on > the loss of rights and freedoms to cover people the > user is acting on behalf of > > *Important information:* > > Information the user may need to complete any action > or task (including offline tasks); or information > related to safety, risk, privacy, health or opportunity. > > *Critical service:* > > A service that is needed to prevent significant harm, > loss (such as significant financial loss), illness or > injury to the user, a deterioration in the condition > of a patient or the effective loss of rights or > freedoms of the user or someone the user is acting on > the behalf of. > > Jim > > *From:*lisa.seeman > [mailto:<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>lisa.seeman@zoho.com > <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 2:47 PM > *To:* public-cognitive-a11y-tf > <<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > <mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>> > *Subject:* last changes? > > Hi folks > > /Can we tighten up the wording at all for the following/ > > *important information* > > information the user may need to complete any action > or task including an offline task, or related to > safety, risks, privacy, health or opportunities > > *critical service* > > service that is needed to prevent significant harm, > risk or loss such as: significant financial loss, > illness, injury or deterioration in a patient's > condition or effective loss of rights or freedoms > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, > Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 11:51:52 UTC