Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

+1

Sent from TypeApp



On 18 Feb 2016, 22:59, at 22:59, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>As a result of discussion on the WCAG call
>(https://www.w3.org/2016/02/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item04,
>https://www.w3.org/2016/02/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item04), on this
>thread
>(https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JanMar/0133.html)
>and in a survey
>(https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160209/results#xq2), we do not
>have a clear consensus on the wording for the third bullet in 2.2 of
>the requirements document
>(https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-ext-req/#ensure-that-web-pages-which-conform-to-wcag-2.0-with-an-extension-also-conform-to-wcag-2.0-on-its-own).
>
>The entire text of 2.2 reads as follows:
>2.2 Ensure that web pages which conform to WCAG 2.0 with an extension
>also conform to WCAG 2.0 on its own
>
>Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to
>existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria as well as offer additional
>guidelines and success criteria but extensions may not weaken what is
>required of web content. The result of this is that when a page
>conforms to WCAG 2.0 with an extension, it must also conform to WCAG
>2.0 if the extension is not considered in the conformance review.
>
>EXAMPLE 1
>
>*   An existing success criterion may change in priority from a lower
>level to a higher level, but not the other way around. For example, a
>Level A Success Criteria cannot move to Level AA.
>  *   A new success criterion may be added.
>*   Existing success criterion may be modified, but the resulting
>change must still satisfy WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
>
>We need some suggestions.  The WCAG’ers on the call believe that the
>3rd bullet isn’t quite right and we don’t have agreement on the
>alternatives.  We want to clearly convey that the extensions may alter
>the text of a success criteria, but that in doing so a web page that
>passes the version of the success criteria in the extension must also
>pass the version of the success criteria in WCAG 2.0.
>
>Any suggestions for language?
>
>Thanks,
>AWK
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>Adobe
>
>akirkpat@adobe.com
>http://twitter.com/awkawk
>http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility