- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:44:33 -0500
- To: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
- Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B17608F9-1706-428C-9AA8-31AF7DAAFF33@raisingthefloor.org>
Hi Wayne see my comments on this in the other thread on focus contrast (just posted) Good luck gregg -------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/> > On May 23, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org> wrote: > > Dear Interest Group, > > I am proposing new rules for the 508 Refresh that could included in WCAG 2.0 without changing normative. They involve adding three fail cases. It would be a shift for WCAG WG members who do not recognize color and text level presentation as being capable of interfering with information, relationships, structures or correct reading sequence. The simple fact is that rigid content structures that prevent reasonable change to these parameters are the largest single obstetrical to visual access for people with low vision. The link below gives the text of my second comments to the Access Board. I am proposing these changes. The Access Board can adopt them as additional with no change to WCAG 2.0. Should the W3C decide the to change the Techniques document everything can stay in total harmony. > > http://www.nosetothepage.org/508/Techniques.html <http://www.nosetothepage.org/508/Techniques.html> > > It is good reading including my definition of data table. > A data table is a table that defines a partial function from order pairs of rows and columns into a space of data values. > > Compared with layout tables a data table cannot be linearized without losing the partial function relation. > > Wayne
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2015 15:45:04 UTC