Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

>This Working Group has attempted to tackle this in the past, and the W3C
consensus position is that WCAG 2.0 does not mandate their use.

My understanding is that the consensus was "not to take the action to add a
failure technique because of some members would not consent to adding it
... that is not the same as saying we took an action to have "consensus to
not mandate their use",  ...  I don't provide my consensus to that proposal
which has never been proposed.

Not having consensus on one thing does not mean we have consensus on
another.

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 Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> JF wrote:
>
> > we cannot retroactively say that they are *REQUIRED*, nor can we fail
> content that does not use either form of landmark determination.
>
>
>
> I agreed that In WCAG 2.0 we couldn’t add it, but why can’t we simple add
> a failure for that in 2.1?
>
>
>
> It would be similar in concept to F91:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F91
>
>
>
> (I.e. lacking markup that the content implies visually, the point of
> 1.3.1.)
>
>
>
> Why would we need a new (very-overlapping) SC for that?
>
>
>
> Create the new failure doc, link to up from 1.3.1 material… job done?
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>