Suggest we reverse my proposal for the conformance note on breakpoints

On today's call (may 1 , 2018) we talked a lot about reflow, text size and
and conformance breakpoints. I was the origin of the of the conformance
note proposal <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/19>.

My position at the time was that WCAG 2.0 is already being interpreted to
include mobile breakpoints so that it was not a change change, just a
clarification.

One of the disadvantages of working in separate task forces is that there
can be overlap. Currently the Reflow Text SC overlaps a lot with this, and
it solves the problem I was trying to solve with this conformance note.

My concern now is that we're now explicitly requiring testing at every
break point AND at 320 px. That is a lot of testing a lot of overlap and it
could increase liability for both testing companies and companies obligated
to meet WCAG.

So my recommendation is that we remove the note. In issue #19
<https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/19> I make it clear that it is not
extending the requirements of WCAG 2.0 so it would not be a substantive
change.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-reqs
It's in the section under full pages and it reads

NOTE New A full page includes each variation of the page that is
automatically presented by the page for various screen sizes (e.g.
variations in a responsive Web page). Each of these variations needs to
conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the
entire page to conform.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

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>