Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

+1

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 11:09 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
>
> > *If we need a separate CfC for each of the substantive changes (i.e.,
> those which don’t simply link to the term “essential” in the glossary),
> then so be it.*
>
> +1
>
> Our initial survey identified a number of instances where linking the term
> to the definition was all that was being asked for, and dealing with *that*
> request
> ​/work-item​
> in an omnibus fashion makes sense. For each other instance, where there
> potentially will be substantive changes, they should each be discussed and
> agreed to individually, as part of our process.
>
> JF
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <
> stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>> All of WCAG 2.0 uses “essentia’” as an exception in only 4 success
>> criteria (and 1 incorrectly in “No Timing”).  In 2.1, we’ve introduced it
>> 11 more times (half of the new criteria).
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d argue we need to re-evaluate each use with a detailed understanding
>> of the definition and ensure that:
>>
>> 1.      We have clear examples where it is supposedly applicable, and
>>
>> 2.      Those examples actually cannot conform in any other way per the
>> definition.
>>
>> Anything less is just tossing in subjective words to make us feel
>> better.  We owe it to the end beneficiaries of this document to follow our
>> own acceptance criteria.  There’s no reason not to start with the incorrect
>> uses identified.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:52 AM
>> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
>> *Cc:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Repsher, Stephen J <
>> stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey
>>
>>
>>
>> > [Jason] I’m supportive of the normative change. I also think that
>> replacing “essential” with what David proposes constitutes a normative
>> change in its own right, as it somewhat clarifies the scope of the
>> exception instead of leaving it ill-defined (as the word “essential” does).
>>
>> I attempted to replace the word essential with the first half of
>>
>> ​our
>>
>>  definition
>>
>> ​ of "essential"​
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>>
>> 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 9:37 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 5, 2017 9:25 AM
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> *[Jason] I’m supportive of the normative change. I also think that
>> replacing “essential” with what David proposes constitutes a normative
>> change in its own right, as it somewhat clarifies the scope of the
>> exception instead of leaving it ill-defined (as the word “essential” does).*
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *[Jason] I regard all but the most trivial changes of wording as
>> normative – even if the intent is to clarify the scope of an exception or
>> qualification. Thus, I don’t think trying to introduce this as a supposedly
>> non-normative change is feasible.*
>>
>> *If we need a separate CfC for each of the substantive changes (i.e.,
>> those which don’t simply link to the term “essential” in the glossary),
>> then so be it.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>