- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:19:09 -0400
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaiBgb=xYY9daZSTDbhVN-xYz8gLdf8gCc7C9LJF8WFYw@mail.gmail.com>
I could live with that. 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 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