W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: Rolling the personalization SC into 4.1.2

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:19:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaiBgb=xYY9daZSTDbhVN-xYz8gLdf8gCc7C9LJF8WFYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I could live with that.

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902



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

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:06 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:32 PM
> *[Jason] I think that approach is too restrictive, and that any text we
> adopt should be open to having multiple, domain-specific taxonomies.*
> That would be a good thing in general, but what I don’t get about this
> idea (and John’s suggestion that the AA one is open, and the AAA is more
> specific), is how you test it?
> If I’m testing a site, do I have to search around schema.org, W3C specs,
> industry specific places to work out what taxonomy to use? What if you come
> up with a different answer to the author? Does the site have to declare
> what it uses?
> *[Jason] Consider the following two conditions:*
>    1. Vocabulary from a taxonomy is used on the site to declare the
>    purpose or function of user interface components (substitute here your
>    preferred substantive requirement).
>    2. The chosen taxonomy is accessibility-supported (or perhaps
>    something slightly stronger than accessibility-supported – meaning, in this
>    case, actively used by user agents or assistive technologies to enhance
>    accessibility for users).
> If these conditions are met, so is the proposal. I think this is plainly
> and reliably testable. There might be a better taxonomy around, but as long
> as the author has chosen to apply one appropriately supported taxonomy (a
> concept that we would define, as above), they’ve satisfied their
> responsibility here.
> ------------------------------
> 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, 19 July 2017 12:19:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:15 UTC