Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?

Hi David,

I don't think I'm understanding the question - I can't see how we could
remove a SC from a WCAG 2.1 and preserve a backwards-compatible path to
2.0.

Again, WCAG is about content requirements AFAIK, and while techniques and
patterns can come and go, the principles and Success Criteria remain, and I
would be concerned about dropping a Success Criteria simply on the basis
that newer technologies seemingly make it easier to achieve any individual
Success Criteria. That, in and of itself, would not justify removing a
requirement in my mind (only make it simpler for content authors to meet
the Success Criteria).

Can you elaborate more please?  Thanks.

JF

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:00 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> On today's mobile call Jeanne brought up an important consideration as we
> make the WCAG 2.1. If 2.1 seems much longer than 2.0 we may be facing
> resistance to the new version. It came up in the context of the question
> about whether we should try to roll new SCs into the existing SCs where
> possible, or introduce new SCs.
>
> But I think the issue raises another question.
>
> Are there any SCs that have been overcome sufficiently by the environment,
> OS, User Agents etc. that we can remove them without breaking the
> acceptance requirement of WCAG 2.1 that meeting it also meets 2.0?
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion