- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:36:12 -0500
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, Ah. I understand now. Thanks. I suspect we wouldn't be able to define "it" or restructure the sentence to everyone's satisfaction. Lets' find out what happens with Proposal L&M on the survey. Kindest Regards, Laura On 4/14/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: > Laura > > that was not the problem > As I pointed out in my email, it was the word “it” that was the problem. I > suggested that you might be able to solve the problem by restructuring the > sentence so that you didn’t have something that said “if the technologies > are available to do it then you must do it, otherwise you don’t have to.” > > That isn’t what you intended but if you look at the structure of the > sentence that is what it says. > > So I didn’t have to do with that phrase but rather the structure of the > sentence. I also suggested that you could fix it by defining what “it” was > more specifically then using the ambiguous pronoun. > > Gregg > Gregg C Vanderheiden > greggvan@umd.edu > > > >> On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:29 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi David, Gregg V, Greg L, Jim, Josh, Andrew, and all, >> >> David, thank you for your email and clarification. We missed you at >> yesterday's meeting. >> >> I agree that Greg L's proposal (J&K) isn't testable. It gets us back >> to where we first started. I had asked him to edit his J&K section of >> the Wiki page. Greg, if you can make your proposal testable, I will >> ask that it be added to next Tuesday's survey. If not, I don't think >> there is much point as it doesn't meet minimum SC requirements. >> >> Gregg V, the "If the technologies being used can achieve" language was >> taken directly from 1.4.5. But we can go back to the language in >> Proposal C and simply remove the words "at least" which some people >> found confusing. >> >> So I have now added Proposal L&M to the Wiki page [1]. >> >> Josh and Andrew, can the L&M proposal please be added to next week's >> survey with the simple question asking if anyone can not live with it? >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> Kindest Regards, >> Laura >> >> [1] >> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_and_M:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach >> >> On 4/13/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>> I see in the minutes the following: >>> >>>> davidm adamant about hard metric for testing >>> >>> Actually I' >>> m not at all >>> >>> "adamant about a >>> hard metric" >>> . >>> I'm hoping for just ONE metric for each, and it can be ANY one metric. >>> I wouldn't call that "hard". It's very soft. I think making authors >>> responsible for EVERYTHING is a big mistake. The SC cannot work like >>> that. >>> The author needs to declare the font overrides they are relying on for >>> their statement of conformance. The tester would test that. It's fine to >>> test other things and make recommendations, but for conformance it has >>> to >>> be testable, apples to apples between the author and the tester. >>> >>> 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, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> To me J and K are steps backwards, making authors responsible for all >>>> 256,000,000 colors... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David MacDonald >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >>>> >>>> Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> >>>> >>>> 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, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Laura Carlson < >>>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Greg and all, >>>>> >>>>> Greg, thank you for your input on the call today [1]. I have added >>>>> your proposals to the Wiki page as Proposal J (Level A) that removes >>>>> hard metrics from the SC and Proposal K (Level AAA). [2] Please adjust >>>>> these as you see fit. >>>>> >>>>> As Andrew requested, tomorrow I'll ask on-list for a vote between J&K >>>>> and H&I [3]. They both use an in tandem 2 SC approach. >>>>> >>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>> Laura >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html#item01 >>>>> >>>>> [2] J&K Proposal >>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Greg_L.27s_ >>>>> Proposal_J_.28Level_A.29_and_K_.28Level_AAA.29:_Also_an_in_ >>>>> tandem_2_SC_approach >>>>> >>>>> [3] H&I Proposal >>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_. >>>>> 28Level_AA.29_and_I_.28Level_AAA.29:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Laura L. Carlson >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Laura L. Carlson > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 April 2017 13:36:46 UTC