Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop)

I'm withdrawing the proposal to amend the conforming alternative
definition, and will try, as Patrick, John and Jason suggest, to ensure the
concern (about non-conforming breakpoint variations of components) is
addressed as we are writing new Success Criteria.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:25 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:39 PM
>
> I've rolled back to the Note 8 that we were close on, and added your note
> 9.
>
> *[Jason] Conforming alternate versions have always been seen as a last
> resort, so the note doesn’t change anything substantial, in my view (which
> is good). They’re surely also too much work for developers unless they’re
> generated automatically.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:18:06 UTC