- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:34:28 -0500
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbhfssTHAr9x0nxH1_5OLa3g6HbO=H=dgyFOq7o=Ljxfw@mail.gmail.com>
Ooops missed one of the fixes... 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 criterion 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 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 2:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > 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 <(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 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. >> ------------------------------ >> > >
Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 19:35:02 UTC