- From: Thad C <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:05:10 -0700
- To: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "lisa. seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOh2y+-p5BA=ct=vf1=jsad3WveC1M=-7zjNNUOmS+sjdwuW8w@mail.gmail.com>
Good Morning, Thanks for the suggestion. I think the intention of the first wording, which was part of the original reword document it to to say: - If an automatic* correction *is known to be reliable and possible, the user agent, API etc should go ahead and make the *correction*. - If the correction is *not* know to be reliable and possible then *suggestions *are provided (which the user can choose from) Does that make sense? On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:36 AM, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > I am a bit confused by the addition now… > > > > @@*3.3.3 Minimize user errors*: Identify common input errors > <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html#dt-common-input-error>. > When an input error <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#input-errordef> is > detected an automatic correction is made where it is *known to be > reliable and possible*. Otherwise, if suggestions for correction are > known, then the suggestions are provided to the user, unless it would > jeopardize the security or purpose of the content.@@ > > > > Does this mean that when you say "Otherwise, if suggestions for correction > are known, then the suggestions are provided to the user…" someone has to > manually supply the correction, as that is what it now sounds like? > > > > Would it be possible to just say: > > > > @@*3.3.3 Minimize user errors*: Identify common input errors > <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html#dt-common-input-error>. > When an input error <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#input-errordef> is > detected an automatic correction is made where it is *known to be > reliable and possible*, then the suggestions are provided to the user, > unless it would jeopardize the security or purpose of the content.@@ > > > > Best wishes > > E.A. > > > > Mrs E.A. Draffan > > WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton > > Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103 > > http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk > > UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/ > > http://www.emptech.info > > > > *From:* Thad C [mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 25 September 2016 19:37 > *To:* lisa. seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> > *Cc:* public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Minimize user errors > > > > The recommended change and the inclusion of the definition makes sense to > me. > > +1 > > Thad > > On Sep 25, 2016 11:31 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > > Hi folks > > > > I made a small change to https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/ > minimize-errors..html > <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html> > > > > Our addition now reads: > > > > When an input error is detected an automatic correction is made where it > is known to be reliable and possible. > > > > and I added the definition for > > known to be reliable and possible as : Identified in the WCAG techniques > as possible to reliably correct > > > > Does this seem Ok to the group? > > > > If yes can we approve this Sc? > > > > > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il..linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > >
Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 13:08:47 UTC