Re: Status messages: an issue with distinguishable guideline perhaps

On 26/03/2018 22:45, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
> Hello Patrick,
> You asserted on this list that "Isn't that (at least in part) the
> point of 3.2.6" so I requested you to indicate the reasoning for that
> statement with respect to the SC's specific language in this thread.
> The subject of this email or the article it links too do not mention
> that SC you pulled into the conversation.
> Please feel free to raise it in whatever forum you may need to in
> order to support your statement above.
> Thanks and best regards,
> Sailesh Panchang

This may be a language issue, but I'm finding your tone here strangely 
confrontational.

With that said, re-reading your link I see what you meant was that 
status messages / content changes need to be *visually* distinguishable 
(where on quick skimming over your question I thought you meant 
programmatically clear/announced, which IS covered by 3.2.6).

As for mandating that messages/changes must be sufficiently 
distinguishable/clear visually...the problem will be how to normatively 
define what "clearly and visually discernible" means. And yes, as the 
window for 2.1 has passed, this would have to be in 2.2 or whatever 
comes next.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 21:52:53 UTC