Re: Proposed response to 833

I think Chuck’s rewording makes the answer clearer.
Detlev

> Am 04.04.2018 um 18:20 schrieb Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>:
> 
> The proposed response confuses me.  We had concerns that “without qualifying language…” bad things would happen, so we elected to “remove the qualifying” language?
> 
> Ought this be that we had concerns “with the qualifying language…”?
> 
> I’m not a stickler on this (this is not the hill I will die on), but I’ve reworded the last two paragraphs as follows:
>  
> The Working Group received comments <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/258> expressing concerns about the scope and criteria in the original wording.  The Working Group elected to remove the qualifying wording and introduce this at the AAA level for two reasons:  1) The required research to back up these specific requirements had not been performed, and 2) there were concerns that with the qualifying language many helpful animations would cause failures at the AA level.
>  
> The intent is to gather more research on the nature and scope of animations which can trigger physical reactions for use with vestibular disorders and create a more contained SC at the AA level in the next version of WCAG.
>  
> Thanks,
> Charles Adams
>  
>   <>
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 8:10 PM
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Proposed response to 833
>  
> Thoughts?
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/833#issuecomment-378322498 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_issues_833-23issuecomment-2D378322498&d=DwMGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=b-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c&m=FHap3QPnwpD7UIFf9kvUDnqlDaqP1Bnq8odnocQABJo&s=1ZvC2IzmjCE08fje4dXhxf5ht-PhlxNMiSMrnLl1idE&e=>
>  
>  
> Thanks,
> AWK
>  
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe 
>  
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>