Re: Capabilities Draft Typographical Errors

Thanks, Mike!


From your last message ...

I'm actually glad to hear about bleed-through on all the WCAG messages.
That actually makes more sense than a single instance, as I used
template coding where just the inner details varied.

Will look for your next round.

Mike Paciello writes:
> All -
> 
> Following is an *initial* list of typographical errors I've identified in
> the current Capabilities draft document:
> 
> 1. *Abstract* - remove period after the word "capabilities"
> 2. *Section 1.2* - In the paragraph under the Note, remove the period after
> the word "methods"
> 3. *Section 1.3* - The spacing in the fourth bulleted item "Does Not Apply"
> and the hyphen that follows the phrase is different from the spacing for
> the 3 previous bulleted items. Is this a code or formatting error?
> 4. *Section 4.4.2* - Under the subsection "Trade-Offs", initial cap the
> first word, "post source"
> 5. *Section 4.4.6* - Under the subsection "Benefit", remove the extra space
> between the period and the end of the sentence.
> 6. *Section 6.2.2* - Under the subsection "Benefit", remove the comma at
> the end of the sentence ending with the word "proximate" and before the
> period.
> 7. *Appendix B.1* - Initial-cap the word. "third-party" at the beginning of
> the paragraph.
> 
> I am completely reviewing the entire document again (my last time, I
> promise!). I just started Section 2 and expect to finish this evening at
> some point.
> 
> Additionally, while I know we've had this discussion before, I do wonder
> whether we should include a brief description, acknowledgement and link to
> the Overlay Fact Sheet within Section 1.4 of our draft? It clearly is NOT a
> regulatory ruling, though I am pretty sure I have seen it referenced in
> some US State regulatory standards (Colorado OIT?). I've also recently
> noticed that the document has gained new traction, likely as a result of
> recent conferences where the topic of Overlays is still popular (i.e.,
> M-Enabling, A11yTO). Additionally, Section 1.4 is not limited to regulatory
> rulings; it's just that the introductory paragraph cites those regulatory
> references.
> 
> Again, it's likely too late to make this, but as I think about it, I
> believe doing so at least suggests that our research is objective, without
> any technical prejudice. A single sentence acknowledging the work with a
> link would suffice. However, I will support the decision of the group,
> especially this is very late in the publication process.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> Mike Paciello
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> michael.paciello@audioeye.com
> +1.603.484.1938
> 
> [image: AudioEye Registered Trademark Logo]
> [image: Follow us on LinkedIn for more accessibility tips!]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/audioeye-inc/>
> 
> -- 
> The information in this communication is intended for the use of the 
> individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and/or exempt from disclosure under law. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
> prohibited.

-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2025 22:20:04 UTC