W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Adapting Text proposals for next week's survey. (was Re: Adding Greg L's Adapting Text proposals to the Wiki in anticipation of a vote between J&K and H&I)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvd+oWopLr4C0cO9VqvSAMSbz6Bnpkfvna7f1pPhtJs4vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

Ah. I understand now. Thanks. I suspect we wouldn't be able to define
"it"  or restructure the sentence to everyone's satisfaction.

Lets' find out what happens with Proposal L&M on the survey.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 4/14/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
> Laura
>
> that was not the problem
> As I pointed out in my email, it was the word “it” that was the problem. I
> suggested that you might be able to solve the problem by restructuring the
> sentence so that you didn’t have something that said “if the technologies
> are available to do it then you must do it, otherwise you don’t have to.”
>
> That isn’t what you intended but if you look at the structure of the
> sentence that is what it says.
>
> So I didn’t have to do with that phrase but rather the structure of the
> sentence. I also suggested that you could fix it by defining what “it” was
> more specifically then using the ambiguous pronoun.
>
> Gregg
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:29 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David, Gregg V, Greg L, Jim, Josh, Andrew, and all,
>>
>> David, thank you for your email and clarification. We missed you at
>> yesterday's meeting.
>>
>> I agree that Greg L's proposal (J&K) isn't testable. It gets us back
>> to where we first started. I had asked him to edit his J&K section of
>> the Wiki page. Greg, if you can make your proposal testable, I will
>> ask that it be added to next Tuesday's survey. If not, I don't think
>> there is much point as it doesn't meet minimum SC requirements.
>>
>> Gregg V, the "If the technologies being used can achieve" language was
>> taken directly from 1.4.5. But we can go back to the language in
>> Proposal C and simply remove the words "at least" which some people
>> found confusing.
>>
>> So I have now added Proposal L&M to the Wiki page [1].
>>
>> Josh and Andrew, can the L&M proposal please be added to next week's
>> survey with the simple question asking if anyone can not live with it?
>>
>> Thanks everyone.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_and_M:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach
>>
>> On 4/13/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> I see in the minutes the following:
>>>
>>>> davidm adamant about hard metric for testing
>>>
>>> Actually I'
>>> ​m​ not at all
>>>
>>> ​"adamant about a
>>> hard metric"
>>> ​. ​
>>> I'm hoping for just ONE metric for each, and it can be ANY one metric.
>>> ​ I wouldn't call that "hard". It's very soft. I think making authors
>>> responsible for EVERYTHING is a big mistake. The SC cannot work like
>>> that.
>>> The author needs to declare the font overrides they are relying on for
>>> their statement of conformance. The tester would test that. It's fine to
>>> test other things and make recommendations, but for conformance it has
>>> to
>>> be testable, apples to apples between the author and the tester.
>>>
>>> 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 Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To me J and K are steps backwards, making authors responsible for all
>>>> 256,000,000 colors...
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David MacDonald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>>>
>>>> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>>>>
>>>> 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 Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Laura Carlson <
>>>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Greg and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg, thank you for your input on the call today [1]. I have added
>>>>> your proposals to the Wiki page as Proposal J (Level A) that removes
>>>>> hard metrics from the SC and Proposal K (Level AAA). [2] Please adjust
>>>>> these as you see fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Andrew requested, tomorrow I'll ask on-list for a vote between J&K
>>>>> and H&I [3]. They both use an in tandem 2 SC approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html#item01
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] J&K Proposal
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Greg_L.27s_
>>>>> Proposal_J_.28Level_A.29_and_K_.28Level_AAA.29:_Also_an_in_
>>>>> tandem_2_SC_approach
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] H&I Proposal
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_.
>>>>> 28Level_AA.29_and_I_.28Level_AAA.29:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 April 2017 13:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 April 2017 13:36:47 UTC