- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:48:32 -0500
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Cc: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Lisa, Ah. Thank you very much for the clarification. Can you perhaps give an example of a SC conflict between extensions based on your definition? And suggest example language for the compatibility section that you could live with? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework#Ensure_that_all_WCAG_extensions_are_compatible_with_each_other Thank you. Kindest Regards, Laura On 10/21/15, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > >But we diverge from the main topic of the thread: "Extension > conflict/compatibility requirement" > > Not really. If we are basing the discussion (as per Wayne's email) on our > definition of accessibility, then we would need to agree on that definition. > (With my definition user conflicts are inevitable. ) I am not saying we > should agree on the definition, but we definitely should not be deciding > these issues based on a definition that does not have consensuses, or is > only part of the picture. > All the best > Lisa -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 13:49:01 UTC