- From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 08:12:41 -0400
- To: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
+1 Sent from my iPad > On May 17, 2017, at 7:48 AM, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote: > > +1 > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> > To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> > Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > Sent: 17/05/2017 12:12:28 > Subject: Re: Errata on WCAG 2.0 1.3.3 and 1.4.1 > >> +1 >> >> Kindest Regards, >> Laura >> >>> On 5/16/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: >>> Gregg suggested (correctly, I believe) that the original intent of 1.3.3 and >>> 1.4.1 is being misunderstood due to the language of the notes. >>> >>> The suggestion is to remove the notes for both SC and the explicitly add >>> “color” to the list of sensory characteristics in 1.3.3: >>> >>> 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics: Instructions provided for understanding and >>> operating content do not rely solely on sensory characteristics of >>> components such as shape, size, @@color,@@ visual location, orientation, or >>> sound. >>> >>> Color is clearly a sensory characteristic, so we could also just handle the >>> addition of “color” in the understanding document but I think that given >>> that color is explicitly discussed in 1.4.1 it may decrease possible >>> misunderstandings. >>> >>> Step one is to add this to the errata document. Step two would be to >>> implement the change in the WCAG 2.1 release. >>> >>> What do people think? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> AWK >>> >>> Andrew Kirkpatrick >>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility >>> Adobe >>> >>> akirkpat@adobe.com >>> http://twitter.com/awkawk >>> >> >> >> -- >> Laura L. Carlson >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 12:13:16 UTC