W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Re[2]: SC Managers and success criteria review

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:10:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbQ_FqqBOoFArGW7KKeoJd8ev_rTbw-0VGS-oObQUeAew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>From what I can tell the metadata SC meets most of the checks. There are
two missing that I can tell.

-works on all technologies: may need to scope for markup languages?
-Implementation:  I believe that is a future scenario, which is why it is
proposed at AAA in 2.1. Not well supported yet.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also,
>
> For the Accessibility Metadata SC none of the supporting materials have
> been worked on yet, as it only got added by ePub on Dec 1, so just look at
> the suggested SC text for that proposed SC for now please.
>
> Also the actiond snd reactions above indicste exactly why we need to meet
> as a group and discuss each SC together.
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545>
>
> On Dec 15, 2016 10:57 AM, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thanks for coming up with this way of looking at/presenting the candidate
>> SCs, these suggestions are helpful and will be useful for this next
>> important phase.
>> We are a little concerned that the estimations recorded in this
>> spreadsheet, such as in 'Details',  may be perceived as the consensus of
>> the group.  We  believe that this is not your intention, and that you wish
>> to help the work progress but it could be perceived by others as
>> representing group consensus.
>>
>> So while we are happy for you to share your opinion, we urge working
>> group members to not view this spreadsheet as being the 'current state of
>> consensus' regarding these issues and to make sure they look at each
>> proposal with a critical eye, to help the group arrive at the best success
>> criteria it can.
>>
>> Many thanks (as always) for your enthusiasm and efforts.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Josh/AWK
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2016 21:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC