W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: FW: Joseph Scheuhammer comments on UAAG

From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:04:53 -0400
Message-ID: <55368335.3070200@alum.mit.edu>
To: jeanne@w3.org, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi Jeanne,

On 2015-04-17 4:38 PM, Jeanne Spellman wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thank you for catching that we did not log your comment on 4.1.6. 
> Fortunately, we did discuss it, even though I didn't write down the 
> decision.  We took your suggestion and moved the bullet "Change 
> state/value notifications"  to 4.1.2 which is level A.
>
> Is this acceptable?

Yes, this is acceptable.

> If so, please respond the UAWG list at w3c-wai-ua@w3.org.  I would 
> have cc:'d the list, but wanted to be sure that was nothing in the 
> earlier thread that you would not want on a public list.

I'll include the UAWG list, but I don't know if it will accept emails 
from me.

>
> Thanks,
>
> jeanne
>
> On 4/2/2015 11:47 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>>> Hi Joseph,
>>>
>>> A while back I asked you for some feedback on UAAG2 which you kindly 
>>> provided.
>>>
>>> We actually worked them into our comment tracker and I'm wondering 
>>> if you can give us a response on whether we adequately addressed 
>>> your issues?
>>>
>>> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/
>>> Your comments are coded: JS01-JS03.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jan
>>
>> Re:  JS01 " 4.1.2 Expose Basic Properties", adding the phrase, "if 
>> present" is fine.
>>
>> Re:  JS02, " 4.1.3 Provide Equivalent Accessible Alternatives", the 
>> new wording is clear.  The new wording is much better.
>>
>> Re: JS03, " 4.1.5 Write Access to the DOM", the new wording is 
>> better.  However, there is a comment in the minutes (my emphasis):
>>
>> " the SC is only talking about *modifying a state or value* of a 
>> piece of content to the same degree that a user *using the user 
>> interface*
>> ... they are misinterpreting the language of the SC"  [1]
>>
>> If "state or value" includes an aria-* attribute and if "the user 
>> interface" includes an AT programmatically changing some aria-* 
>> attribute, then my comment still stands.  If, on the other hand, 
>> "state and value" and "user interface" do not so include, then, well, 
>> okay.
>>
>> I also had a comment on " 4.1.6 Expose Additional Properties", but it 
>> looks like the group has not got that far, yet.  Is that the case?
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/02/05-ua-minutes.html#item03
>>
>

-- 
;;;;joseph.

'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
            - G. Bernhardt -
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 17:05:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 April 2015 17:05:25 UTC