- 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