- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:26:00 +0000
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- CC: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B3A4D7DE-AE67-4621-A80D-712AED2367BB@adobe.com>
This discussion is sucking up all of the oxygen on the list. Can it wait until after CR when we can focus more on the techniques?
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk
From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:19
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:18
>> Which is why you cannot add a new Failure Technique to 1.3.1 mandating landmarks.
I'm not too interested on going back over old decisions, but the failure didn't fail a page if it used text to describe the section...
>> no retroactive changes to the existing WCAG 2.0
Absolutely agree... my opinion is there has never been a proposal to change WCAG 2.0
> Today, many of us advise our clients that iconography, while not covered by 2.0,
icons are not covered in WCAG 2, information and relationships are.
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=VkUrpxY9SXnsIUf4dMXnONp0uouVIJz4ETlCkjc5M8Q%3D&reserved=0>
twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=hlCiC6UbM%2FThkhVFrjS6FCzpWlccC4Dh5rleEWUCDxs%3D&reserved=0>
GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=D1jMVIjo5ws6KgpDN5tcxCuIllE64rnaDllAOVLhvP4%3D&reserved=0>
www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=GQGUHRKlzdjIpVU2v5LAEoeRnGxaNT%2B8TMrp71TTahQ%3D&reserved=0>
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=2Xu%2BLi3VP%2FAG4XULK0fTLZwYNjVw0uGNDM%2Bg3YwPAfU%3D&reserved=0>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:09 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
> I agree, it would not be a failure...
Which is why you cannot add a new Failure Technique to 1.3.1 mandating landmarks. I feel your pain brother, but do it the right way - introduce a new SC that disambiguates 1.3.1 w.r.t. region navigation, then bring on your Technique(s).
The Charter for WCAG 2.1 was very clear - no retroactive changes to the existing WCAG 2.0 - and like it or not, we have existing text that states that meeting a Failure Technique means you are non-compliant - square that circle and we're good to go.
> AC: Then we need a mechanism to separate techniques and failures that apply from 2.1 onwards.
I would be fully supportive of something like that, as long as we all recognize that it also makes Techniques quasi-normative in the process... I would not oppose that either, but any move that retroactively changes the requirements for 2.0 compliance I will oppose strongly (and I've not changed that position since this first came up in discussion)
.
> AC: it would fail our SC requirements to not over-lap with other SC.
However, it's not 'overlapping' - it's extending, in a fashion similar to SC 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast.
Today, many of us advise our clients that iconography, while not covered by 2.0, SHOULD also meet a minimum color contrast as well, as those icons are "calls to action" and need to be Perceivable. It is my opinion that we have a similar situation here with Landmarks, and the precedent for introducing a new SC to cover known or perceived gaps in existing SC has already been established.
JF
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:47 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
I agree, it would not be a failure...
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902<tel:(613)%20235-4902>
LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=VkUrpxY9SXnsIUf4dMXnONp0uouVIJz4ETlCkjc5M8Q%3D&reserved=0>
twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=hlCiC6UbM%2FThkhVFrjS6FCzpWlccC4Dh5rleEWUCDxs%3D&reserved=0>
GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=D1jMVIjo5ws6KgpDN5tcxCuIllE64rnaDllAOVLhvP4%3D&reserved=0>
www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=GQGUHRKlzdjIpVU2v5LAEoeRnGxaNT%2B8TMrp71TTahQ%3D&reserved=0>
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=2Xu%2BLi3VP%2FAG4XULK0fTLZwYNjVw0uGNDM%2Bg3YwPAfU%3D&reserved=0>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:44 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
> If structure is conveyed through presentation, it needs to be also programmatically determined ....
... OR AVAILABLE IN TEXT!
<body>
<h1>Two Columns</h1>
<div style="float:left; width:49%;">
<h2>Left Column</h2>
<p>Blah blah</p>
</div>
<div style="width:49%;">
<h2>Right Column</h2>
<p>Blah blah</p>
</div>
</body>
...meets the requirement David. Yet Understanding states "Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria", so you would then be able to fail that code sample I provided with your proposed Failure Technique.
Sorry, nope.
JF
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, exactly... that is true for the techniques... the presence of a techniques for landmarks does not make them mandatory.... that is not the basis of my opinion
The normative SC says:
"Information, structure<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FUNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2Fcontent-structure-separation-programmatic.html%23structuredef&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=KbfjKFdO0QbF9nqTmZOo8l%2FJ8JitWX2nH1cqBZOIMuQ%3D&reserved=0>, and relationships<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FUNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2Fcontent-structure-separation-programmatic.html%23relationshipsdef&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=ony0B4bqVL8FIOYkWVpJbPc1v3frFaDbB499gjWn2WI%3D&reserved=0> conveyed through presentation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FUNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2Fcontent-structure-separation-programmatic.html%23presentationdef&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=4BvnT5%2FfoptfIcFBfs206Bsg3TP%2FjLiOD4wo4BcrbZI%3D&reserved=0> can be programmatically determined<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FUNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2Fcontent-structure-separation-programmatic.html%23programmaticallydetermineddef&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=4GphkbFmHuQJUTCOWLelgS39EqkFqSE1GQ7DlRVxfX8%3D&reserved=0> or are available in text. (Level A)"
If structure is conveyed through presentation, it needs to be also programmatically determined ....
This is the basis of my opinion
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902<tel:(613)%20235-4902>
LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=VkUrpxY9SXnsIUf4dMXnONp0uouVIJz4ETlCkjc5M8Q%3D&reserved=0>
twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=hlCiC6UbM%2FThkhVFrjS6FCzpWlccC4Dh5rleEWUCDxs%3D&reserved=0>
GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=D1jMVIjo5ws6KgpDN5tcxCuIllE64rnaDllAOVLhvP4%3D&reserved=0>
www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=GQGUHRKlzdjIpVU2v5LAEoeRnGxaNT%2B8TMrp71TTahQ%3D&reserved=0>
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=2Xu%2BLi3VP%2FAG4XULK0fTLZwYNjVw0uGNDM%2Bg3YwPAfU%3D&reserved=0>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote:
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<tel:613.235.4902>
LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=VkUrpxY9SXnsIUf4dMXnONp0uouVIJz4ETlCkjc5M8Q%3D&reserved=0>>
twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=hlCiC6UbM%2FThkhVFrjS6FCzpWlccC4Dh5rleEWUCDxs%3D&reserved=0> <http://twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=hlCiC6UbM%2FThkhVFrjS6FCzpWlccC4Dh5rleEWUCDxs%3D&reserved=0>>
GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=D1jMVIjo5ws6KgpDN5tcxCuIllE64rnaDllAOVLhvP4%3D&reserved=0>>
www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.Can-Adapt.com&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=ZeoypbRac%2FeubQriBYdig%2BVN8RvZHjKir6jCTpJClow%3D&reserved=0> <http://www.can-adapt.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=GQGUHRKlzdjIpVU2v5LAEoeRnGxaNT%2B8TMrp71TTahQ%3D&reserved=0>>
/ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=2Xu%2BLi3VP%2FAG4XULK0fTLZwYNjVw0uGNDM%2Bg3YwPAfU%3D&reserved=0>>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com> <mailto: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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG-TECHS%2Ffailures.html%23F91&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=mRb%2B5bYdSGR2NK2EVNvDeOd7uy6LJD8K4BcspYUuxR8%3D&reserved=0>
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F91<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG-TECHS%2Ffailures.html%23F91&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=mRb%2B5bYdSGR2NK2EVNvDeOd7uy6LJD8K4BcspYUuxR8%3D&reserved=0>> ____
__ __
(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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftink.uk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0e490097868b4f26ee0d08d559e097d6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513743509682639&sdata=CZ308knKib2d0CN9ccDMm7%2BSyGMzHttKgzhzfDzGYVQ%3D&reserved=0> carpe diem
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 17:26:29 UTC