W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Action 712

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:00:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4F852BF6.5000101@manchester.ac.uk>
To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
CC: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Hi Jan,

So let me try and simplify:
1) I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are redundant - no one will implement them at 
AAA, and technology isn't really good enough just yet; but we should 
present the information we have (the information we would have to 
present to the computational algorithm for it to try and repair) to the 
user.
2) lets remove both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
3) 1.2.4 seems good but needs extending with the remnants of 1.2.1 and 
1.2.2 so that it presents the information (the information we would have 
to present to the computational algorithm - 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 - for it to 
try and repair) too.
4) 1.2.3 is aspirational and seems OK - it's not much possible right now 
but we've agreed it so it's fine. I think 1.2.3 gets applied first and 
then (1.2.1+.2+.4) my suggestion when 1.2.3 fails.

I'd also say my suggestion could be applied in the case of a missing 
association too - in that we recognize something is missing, the user is 
notified, if they ask for it the (form field, say) information is 
provided to them.

Does this clarify?

Si.

PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.

=======================
Simon Harper
http://simon.harper.name/about/card/

University of Manchester (UK)
Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk


On 10/04/12 18:55, Richards, Jan wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> There is a lot going on in your message. Can you please list all of the success criteria that would be present in your rewording of Guideline 1.2?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 07:00:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 April 2012 07:00:39 GMT