Re: SC for user agent dependence

+1 Jason on that. I think we could provide a sentence about content not
being dropped off of breakpoints if necessary.

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 Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:47 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> We’re already stating that different versions of the content that are
> offered dependent upon screen size must conform for the entire page to
> conform. It would be possible to add the condition that they must also
> provide equivalent content and functionality in order for the entire page
> to conform.
>
>
>
> We’ve already addressed the issue of multiple versions based on screen
> size in a note; we can modify that proposal after August, if others agree
> with you that it needs clarifying. I think it would be unwise to give this
> issue further consideration prior to August given the heavy demands already
> placed on the working group by the proposals that need review.
>
>
>
> *From:* Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:43 PM
>
> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SC for user agent dependence
>
>
>
> Again, I’m not sure how since the requirement is for the content itself,
> and has nothing to do with a claimed conforming alternate.  Content
> requirements can’t be conformance requirements.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <jjwhite@ets.org>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:26 PM
> *To:* Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SC for user agent dependence
>
>
>
> I think you could modify the proposed note to clarify the issue. The
> language in the definition of “conforming alternate version” could be
> adapted, if necessary.
>
>
>
> *From:* Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com
> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:23 PM
> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SC for user agent dependence
>
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>
>
> I’m not referring to conforming alternates at all.  Just as with the note
> added, I’m referring to things like media queries which can change a page
> significantly based on screen size.  The note says that both the mobile
> version and the desktop version must conform, but only a success criteria
> can specify that I should be able to access the same content and
> functionality through each version.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <jjwhite@ets.org>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:15 PM
> *To:* Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SC for user agent dependence
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com
> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:19 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>
> I thought a little more about the recent CFC which passed to add a note to
> the “Full Page” conformance requirement.  I realized that we probably do
> need a success criterion in addition to this note in order to fully address
> user needs.
>
>
>
> The issue fixed by the added note makes it clear that all versions of the
> page that have a programmatic dependence need to conform in order for the
> “full page” to conform.  However, what if those different versions have
> significantly different content or functionality?
>
> *[Jason] In that case, one version would not be a “conforming alternate
> version” of the other, since the definition of “conforming alternate
> version” (see the glossary) requires content and functional equivalence.
> This answer assumes, of course, that the two renderings of the page
> constitute two different versions of it for purposes of WCAG. If we need to
> clarify this further, and I’m not sure whether we do, I think it belongs in
> the Conformance section rather than in the success criteria.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>