Re: Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?

> We may at some point want to think about establishing filtering criteria
that would show a list of SCs without WCAG 2 stuff that we (almost) never
fail people on anymore.

I'd truly struggle with that David - even the notion that some A and AA
requirements aren't important enough "to show" is, to my mind, damaging.

>From my perspective, I would want to test all of WCAG 2.1, both the easy
stuff and the hard stuff. If most developers get things right out of the
gate, then cool, shorter testing time, but I'd struggle to filter out SC
based upon preconceptions - sometimes it is, in fact, the "easy stuff" that
trips people up.

I'd also like to strongly suggest that a filtering view (etc.) should
likely be left to tool vendors and/or EOWG, who were responsible for that
wonderful Quickref we have today. I think the WCAG WG should stay focused
on:

   - first, determining our numbering scheme (scheduled for next week's
   call I believe),
   - second, establish what new SC we are going to add (or modifications we
   are going to propose),
   - third, work on "Understanding" documentation (we likely already have a
   lot of what would be needed for that, but it would need to be written up to
   follow existing "Understanding" documentation - I don't think a wiki page
   would cut it),
   - and fourth, get some Techniques for Successes and Failures written up.

JF

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Sailesh Panchang <
sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:

> Untill there is a version of WCAG that replaces / sunsets  2.0 (like
> 2.0 replaced 1.0),  it is not clear how any individual normative
> requirement of WCAG 2.0 can be declared officially to be irrelevant.
> There may be some gov agencies / law that still reference WCAG 1 ...
> that's fine, but it is not ok now for W3C to say that only some
> checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 are invalid.
> WCAG 2.1 is meant to be incremental, right?
>
> By the way, many consider SC 1.4.4 to be addressed by user agents.
> So the Understanding doc is a place to clarify such developments.
> Also for any Web page, seldom do all Level A and Level AA SCs apply.
> So those that do not apply because the particular type of content is
> not present are deemed to have been met or not applicable.
>
> And of course 4.1.1 is very relevant to make content robust across
> platforms / UA - AT combos.
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion