Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

Jason says:
>  I don’t think it’s a good idea to qualify requirements in this way
without persuasive, concrete examples that demonstrate the need for the
qualification.

If we don't do that, then ALL content and functionality will be required to
work, which increases the requirements. This is a normative change, to an
SC that had consensus.

Alastair says
> I’d note for this one that we’ve been through the top 50 websites to test
it, and found relatively few issues. E.g. certain boxes in google search
results with a fixed height would start overlaping. Most content (even
navigation menus) were fine, which surprised me a bit.

I'm not sure in the real world what the implications are. This is new
territory. We want this standard to be widely adopted for all types of
content. I think it's imprudent to remove an exception for non essential
content.  and I think its a normative change that should be evaluated
separate from an omnibus pull request.

Steve says:
>  we ought not leave illogical criteria out there to review.

I'm not convinced
​ the definition of essential actually means essential content doesn't
conform. I don't think it does say that,  "another way"​ doesn't mean "this
way" fails. I'm willing to take an action item to bring this to a legal
draftsman with whom I've worked, who writes legislation, and ask his
opinion on whether our definition means "essential" content doesn't
conform. If it doesn't say that, then we may not need to change it.


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, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 5, 2017 8:30 AM
>
> How about something like this?
>
>
>
> ==Current==
>
>
>
> If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style
> properties of text, then no loss of essential content or functionality
> occurs by adapting all of the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> ==revised===
>
> If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style
> properties of text, then no loss of content necessary to understand or
> operate the page occurs by adapting all of the following:
>
> *[Jason] It still contains a synonym for “essential” to address
> unspecified problematic cases. I don’t think it’s a good idea to qualify
> requirements in this way without persuasive, concrete examples that
> demonstrate the need for the qualification.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>