From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:34 AM I think you will get more push-back from requiring an on-page solution, and in comparison pushing for a *well scoped* set of semantics would be easier and better. [Jason] I agree, with the emphasis decidedly on “well scoped”, “precisely defined”, “broadly applicable across the Web” and “efficacious when supported by assistive technology”. If such a solution were in place (and I would argue it isn’t yet), it would be much easier to argue for an extension of the markup and metadata requirements of WCAG. As I’ve argued earlier in this discussion, I think the technology, the implementation, and the evidence of efficacy need to precede the WCAG integration. ________________________________ 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 Wednesday, 5 July 2017 20:42:06 UTC