- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:04:53 -0400
- To: jeanne@w3.org, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi Jeanne, On 2015-04-17 4:38 PM, Jeanne Spellman wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > Thank you for catching that we did not log your comment on 4.1.6. > Fortunately, we did discuss it, even though I didn't write down the > decision. We took your suggestion and moved the bullet "Change > state/value notifications" to 4.1.2 which is level A. > > Is this acceptable? Yes, this is acceptable. > If so, please respond the UAWG list at w3c-wai-ua@w3.org. I would > have cc:'d the list, but wanted to be sure that was nothing in the > earlier thread that you would not want on a public list. I'll include the UAWG list, but I don't know if it will accept emails from me. > > Thanks, > > jeanne > > On 4/2/2015 11:47 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >>> Hi Joseph, >>> >>> A while back I asked you for some feedback on UAAG2 which you kindly >>> provided. >>> >>> We actually worked them into our comment tracker and I'm wondering >>> if you can give us a response on whether we adequately addressed >>> your issues? >>> >>> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ >>> Your comments are coded: JS01-JS03. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jan >> >> Re: JS01 " 4.1.2 Expose Basic Properties", adding the phrase, "if >> present" is fine. >> >> Re: JS02, " 4.1.3 Provide Equivalent Accessible Alternatives", the >> new wording is clear. The new wording is much better. >> >> Re: JS03, " 4.1.5 Write Access to the DOM", the new wording is >> better. However, there is a comment in the minutes (my emphasis): >> >> " the SC is only talking about *modifying a state or value* of a >> piece of content to the same degree that a user *using the user >> interface* >> ... they are misinterpreting the language of the SC" [1] >> >> If "state or value" includes an aria-* attribute and if "the user >> interface" includes an AT programmatically changing some aria-* >> attribute, then my comment still stands. If, on the other hand, >> "state and value" and "user interface" do not so include, then, well, >> okay. >> >> I also had a comment on " 4.1.6 Expose Additional Properties", but it >> looks like the group has not got that far, yet. Is that the case? >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/02/05-ua-minutes.html#item03 >> > -- ;;;;joseph. 'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"' - G. Bernhardt -
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 17:05:24 UTC