Re: Low Vision and COGA should Drop Support for WCAG 2.1 if the AG WG is not willing make real change.

> There is a threshold beneath which content is not accessible. That is the
point where a population cannot use content to achieve the author's goal
for the content.

I don't think any of us with disabilities can speak confidently for
everyone else with that same disability, particularly when it comes to
thresholds of accessibility for a fluid population, unless we are are in
fact a spokesman for an organization that represents people with that
disability who have asked us to speak in that capacity. At CSUN Jamie
Knight famously said after his talk. "You have now met exactly ONE person
with autism."

Each of us has things we can and cannot do easily, and some things that we
cannot do at all. The WCAG is trying to identify things that are achievable
within the reality of todays diverse stakeholders.



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>

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​In our great rush to protect developers from lawsuits I would like to
> point out that WCAG 2.0 took my right to legal protection away. Right now I
> live in a country that has a policy that leaves me out.  Had WCAG stayed
> guidelines and not pushed to become law that would not have been so bad.
> Now that WCAG 2.0 got it did real harm. It invalidated Section 508 for
> people with low vision.
>
>