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

​Here it is with Jason's suggestions regarding "reviewers" vs "public"​

- In its 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 reviewers 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
​reviewers
 on how to improve it are welcome.

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

- In its current form, the proposal does not apply across technologies.
Suggestions from reviewers 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 reviewers 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
​. Suggestions from
​reviewers
 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 2:48 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> 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.
> ------------------------------
>