Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users

Thanks Patrick

> Patrick H. Lauke <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>
> 20 February 2017 at 22:48
>
>
> User Agent Switcher for Firefox 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher/ is 
> what I suggested to Wayne...but it seems that (since it's quite old) 
> it's not working all too well nowadays (seems to somehow forget the 
> defined user agents).
>
> This one 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher-revived/ 
> seems to be more up-to-date, but the interface is a tad more confusing.
>
> There are a few other similar extensions around, but in essence the 
> main point is: set it to pretend to be a mobile device, like an 
> iPhone, and then visit GitHub - this will switch GH to the mobile 
> fluid/single-column view
>
> P
> Thaddeus . <mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
> 20 February 2017 at 22:10
>
> +1
>
> Joshue O Connor <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>
> 20 February 2017 at 21:23
>
>> Wayne Dick <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>
>> 20 February 2017 at 18:47
>> Patrick gave me a link to a mobile phone spoofer for Firefox, called 
>> User Agent Switcher. So I can read Github easily now.
> I'm really glad to hear that you can access GH better now. This would 
> be good for other members of the LVTF -
> so maybe share the extension with the group.
>
> Sincere apologies that there are issues with these tools for VIP, and 
> thanks also to Patrick for chipping in with a practical solution.
> I hope this helps remove some barriers to participation for you and 
> others.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>>
>> Seeing the whole thing I kind of think we should just publish what we 
>> have approved. Many of the LV SCs are not in their most evolved 
>> forms.  I know we took a vote, and I gave a +1, but seeing it now the 
>> incomplete SCs look too incomplete. I'm worried they will create more 
>> confusion than stimulate meaningful discussion.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>
>> 20 February 2017 at 18:36
>>
>> +1 to Greggs comments, which could be in the ‘At Risk’ (or some such 
>> name) section……
>>
>> ​ ​​​​** katie **
>>
>> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
>> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>>
>> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****ryladog@gmail.com* 
>> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile* 
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office: 
>> 703-371-5545 **|****@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>*
>>
>> *NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an 
>> expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify 
>> that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the 
>> W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my 
>> employer, Deque Systems.**
>>
>> *From:*White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 1:28 PM
>> *To:* Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; David MacDonald 
>> <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> *Cc:* Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org 
>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
>>
>> +1 to Gregg’s comments, which are in line with how the working group 
>> has historically operated in publishing drafts.
>>
>> White, Jason J <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>
>> 20 February 2017 at 18:28
>>
>> +1 to Gregg’s comments, which are in line with how the working group 
>> has historically operated in publishing drafts.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>> 20 February 2017 at 18:26
>> I do not agree that you we should release SC for public comment that 
>> do not meet the criteria for an SC.
>>
>> if they do not qualify — they are not SC.
>>
>> If we want to release those that DO qualify
>> AND ALSO get help on other ones that DON’T YET
>>
>> Then we could have an *additional* *section below *the ones that 
>> qualify  that says.
>>
>>   * the following are things we would like to see but they do not
>>     qualify for the reasons stated under each one.
>>   * if people know of ways to modify these so they would qualify - we
>>     would much like to see your ideas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> X1:  SHORT NAME OF #1:    Text of the thing we would like to make 
>> into an SC
>>
>>   * reason #1  — and why               [ For example       * Not
>>     testable — because it contains the phrase  “must be easy” but
>>     “easy” is not a testable term ]
>>   * reason #2 (if there are more than 1) — and why       [ example  
>>     *Not broadly applicable — because this can only be met by markup
>>     languages ]
>>
>>
>>
>> X2:  SHORT NAME OF #2:  text of 2
>>
>>   * reason #1 - and why
>>
>>
>> etc
>>
>>
>> That way we
>>
>>  1. don’t make it look like we can include things we can’t — and then
>>     disappoint people when we drop all the ones we can’t
>>  2. we get people who want them in there to give us their best effort
>>     in getting them into shape 
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David MacDonald <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>
>> 20 February 2017 at 17:36
>> While I agree that there has not been complete WG consensus for 23 of 
>> the 25 new SCs, I would also say that the Task forces worked hard on 
>> the SCs that were submitted as issues, and by their submission as 
>> Issues, it means they had consensus of at least the task forces that 
>> created them.
>>
>> I was against the idea of releasing working drafts on a set schedule, 
>> but since the group made that decision, then I support the group 
>> consensus to do so.
>>
>> Although there are a number of SCs which do not meet all the 
>> requirements for SCs, I think we should go forward and see what the 
>> public says.
>>
>> The other option is to wait about 9 months so that we can vet 60 
>> success criteria at a rate of 2 per week. And I don't think they will 
>> be that much better at that point... and if a many  of the 60 SCs are 
>> rejected by the public after the FPWD we will be 9 months behind.
>>
>> I think the current disclaimer language strikes a good balance 
>> between saying this is the best of our work so far, and it still has 
>> a long way to go, and it gives the public a chance to look over our 
>> shoulders before everything is baked in.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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>
>>
>>
>
> Wayne Dick <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>
> 20 February 2017 at 18:47
> Patrick gave me a link to a mobile phone spoofer for Firefox, called 
> User Agent Switcher. So I can read Github easily now.
>
> Seeing the whole thing I kind of think we should just publish what we 
> have approved. Many of the LV SCs are not in their most evolved 
> forms.  I know we took a vote, and I gave a +1, but seeing it now the 
> incomplete SCs look too incomplete. I'm worried they will create more 
> confusion than stimulate meaningful discussion.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>
> 20 February 2017 at 18:36
>
> +1 to Greggs comments, which could be in the ‘At Risk’ (or some such 
> name) section……
>
> ​ ​​​​** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea**
> **Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 **|****ryladog@gmail.com* 
> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>***|****Oakton, VA **|****LinkedIn Profile* 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>***|****Office: 
> 703-371-5545 **|****@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>*
>
> *NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an 
> expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify 
> that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C 
> - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my 
> employer, Deque Systems.**
>
> *From:*White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 1:28 PM
> *To:* Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; David MacDonald 
> <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org 
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
>
> +1 to Gregg’s comments, which are in line with how the working group 
> has historically operated in publishing drafts.
>

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 13:40:33 UTC