Re: requirement 8

I can agree with adding an "Impact" section. Good idea ...

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, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Gregg wrote:
>
> > You just don’t want overlap on the same level — or a requirement at a
> lower level that is already covered by a higher level.
>
>
>
> So if 1.4.8 (requiring 200% without horizontal scrolling) were still at
> AAA, it would conflict with the new Resize content’s 400% without
> horizontal scrolling at AA [1]. It would still conflict if 1.48 were moved
> up to AA.
>
>
>
> I think the logical outcome is that any SC which *increases* a
> requirement will create overlap/conflict, therefore we will have to edit
> current SCs.
>
>
>
> I suggest that we add an ‘impact assessment’ for each SC description to
> explicitly outlines the possible impact on other SCs, and review the
> techniques/failures of the impacted SCs.
>
>
>
> I don’t think it has to be that big a thing in most cases, for example the
> new Resize content [1] would impact the 1.4.4 & 1.48 techniques, which
> already overlap. It would be a case of re-assigning, de-assigning, or
> moving from sufficient to advisory current techniques that apply to those
> two SCs, and perhaps adding new techniques for the new SC.
>
>
>
> That is already underway on Resize content [1] under ‘Techniques’, but I
> don’t think we have thought through where techniques/failures might be
> retired from 2.1 if a current SC is modified.
>
>
>
> A wider review could point out more overlaps/conflict, and the impact
> assessment would be a good place to record that.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
>