- From: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:39:52 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <58AD94A8.6030900@interaccess.ie>
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