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

Thanks, David. It’s all editorial at this point, except for one belated substantive idea: instead of “suggestions from the public”, write “suggestions from reviewers”. The note should probably be headed “Note to reviewers”, which I vaguely recall was the terminology used when WCAG 2.0 was in draft.

It’s all editorial knit-picking below.

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 2:34 PM

- 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.
[Jason] s/it’s/its/

- 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.
[Jason] s/criteria/criterion/


- 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.

[Jason] That’s significantly improved – thanks.




________________________________

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.

________________________________