- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:10:40 -0500
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbQ_FqqBOoFArGW7KKeoJd8ev_rTbw-0VGS-oObQUeAew@mail.gmail.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