Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.

Here's an amended version, incorporating Gregg and Jason's comments.

- In it's current form, the proposal may not address a situation where a
user with a disability will be disproportionately disadvantaged (as
compared to a user without a disability) if the criteria is not met?
Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.

- In its current form, the proposal may not be reliably testable either
through human testing or automated testing? Suggestions from the public on
how to improve it are welcome.

- In its current form, the proposal does not describe
 the ​
specific
​passing ​
condition required to meet the criteria
​. ​It provides a "method" which is more of a technique than an SC.
Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.

- In its current form, the proposal does not apply across technologies.
Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.

- In its current form, the proposal is creating a requirement for something
that is already required by an existing Success Criterion. [See SC XXXX] .
Suggestions from the public on how better to address the overlapping
requirements or a change that would clarify how it differs from the
existing SC are welcome.

- In its current form, the proposal may not be implementable, using
readily-available formats, free (or low cost) user agents, and/or assistive
technologies
​ that are available today​
. Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.

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 Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> This is a good and thoughtful proposal, David – see mostly editorial
> comments below.
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 6, 2017 12:07 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
>
>
> start on a ​
>
> library of these comments:
>
> ​==============​
>
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal may not address a situation where a
> user with a disability will be disproportionately disadvantaged (as
> compared to a user without a disability) if the criteria is not met?
> Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.
>
> *[Jason] Replace “it’s” with “its” and “criteria” with “criterion” to fix
> the grammar. The same applies later, but I know I don’t need to point those
> occurrences out explicitly.*
>
>
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal may not be reliably testable either
> through human testing or automated testing? Suggestions from the public on
> how to improve it are welcome.
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal describes the method to address the
> criteria.
>
> ​Success Criteria should describe the ​
>
> the specific
>
> ​passing ​
>
> condition required to meet the criteria
>
> ​. ​
>
> Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.
>
> *[Jason] Delete the redundant instance of “the”. I think it reads well
> with that correction made.*
>
>
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal does not apply across technologies.
> Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal is creating a requirement for
> something that is already required by an existing Success Criterion. [See
> SC XXXX] . Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.
>
> *[Jason] Or perhaps suggestions “on how better to address the overlapping
> requirements”? What do we want in this case? A change that would clarify
> how it differs from the existing SC?*
>
>
>
> - In it's current form, the proposal may not be implementable, using
> readily-available formats, free (or low cost) user agents, and/or assistive
> technologies
>
> ​ that are available today​
>
> . Suggestions from the public on how to improve it are welcome.
>
>
>
> ​================
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>