Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

The techniques are informative not normative. So at best they are a 
recommendation from the WG on how to interpret a particular SC, they do 
not make something mandatory, or prohibit its use in meeting the SC in 
question.




On 12/01/2018 15:11, David MacDonald wrote:
>  >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 <http://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 <mailto: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
>     <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____
> 
>     __ __
> 
> 

-- 
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk carpe diem

Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 15:42:03 UTC