- From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:27:09 -0400
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- 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>
only those that are technology dependent and we only think this will work with certain types of technology (e.g. only works with technology having a style sheet) Gregg C Vanderheiden greggvan@umd.edu > On Apr 24, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 14:27:48 UTC