Thread Subject: 3-E Color Adjustment - my action item from Tuesday's meeting

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: 3-E Color Adjustment - my action item from Tuesday's meeting

Here is the editorial suggestion for 3-E that removes the use of the word
"product":

Current wording:

"When a product permits a user to adjust color and contrast settings, at
least one color selection capable of producing a minimum luminosity
contrast ratio of 7:1 must be provided."

Proposed wording:

"When a user function is provided to adjust color and contrast settings, at
least one color selection capable of producing a minimum luminosity
contrast ratio of 7:1 must be provided."

Any objections?

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: 3-E Color Adjustment - my action item fromTuesday's meeting

Looks good

Is this a stand alone or is this just half of a provision?


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:19 PM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: [teitac-committee] 3-E Color Adjustment - my action
> item fromTuesday's meeting
>
>
> Here is the editorial suggestion for 3-E that removes the use
> of the word
> "product":
>
> Current wording:
>
> "When a product permits a user to adjust color and contrast
> settings, at least one color selection capable of producing a
> minimum luminosity contrast ratio of 7:1 must be provided."
>
> Proposed wording:
>
> "When a user function is provided to adjust color and
> contrast settings, at least one color selection capable of
> producing a minimum luminosity contrast ratio of 7:1 must be
> provided."
>
> Any objections?
>
> Andi
>
>