- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:59:48 -0500
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Stephen Repsher <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, To Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg and all, On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: > We need to be careful that we don’t write the guidelines to only apply for > today. We want to write guidelines that will apply for the future as well. > > So, I don’t think that we can drop the phrase because it works with technologies > today if we know there is a revolution coming. And there is a revolution coming > including 3-D immersive etc If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used" language on all of our SCs? > As to what technologies there are out there today, I’m not the expert on that. I just > posted another message just before this asking that question. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 14:00:26 UTC