- From: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:09:55 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>>, so how can we make sure that when they land on them it's made crystal clear that what they're seeing isn't normative, and in the case of techniques, that this is nothing more than an example... Respective disclaimer on top ? 😊 But I feel nevertheless some will take it verbally. This is typically the point where discussions with devs start.... Regards Stefan -----Original Message----- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 11:05 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Plugins as SC - thread was: Visual Indicators On 19/04/2020 09:47, Schnabel, Stefan wrote: [...] >>> So let's not conflate failure examples with requirements. > > This is EXACTLY what developers typically do. And these are your customers. > Ambiguities weaken acceptance. Sorry, but this is how I see it. Then we should be much clearer in how the understanding document, and individual failure/sufficient techniques, are labelled. Yes, customers will jump in sideways/directly to those and get the misguided idea that they're more than just techniques, so how can we make sure that when they land on them it's made crystal clear that what they're seeing isn't normative, and in the case of techniques, that this is nothing more than an example... P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2020 09:10:13 UTC