Re: WCAG 2.2 SC Do Not Rely On User Memory Draft

I will insert those comments in the draft, and open it up to discussion in the COGA TF next week.
On 8/23/19, 11:56 AM, "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:

    I agree, let's just add it to the understanding to clear up any confusion.
    
    Jonathan
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
    Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:02 PM
    To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 SC Do Not Rely On User Memory Draft
    
    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
    
    
    On 23/08/2019 17:32, David Fazio wrote:
    > I added in a reference to 3.3.2 Labels of Instructions. I don't think we should omit it just because it constitutes a failure of another S.C. The reason being is that this gives "cause" to users with cognitive disabilities. "Cause" is a legal standard that must be met, demonstrating that an individual has been harmed, in order to bring forth a lawsuit. A user who is not blind, and does not rely on braille cannot sue a compant for not providing braille materials, because that does not harm them. Although it would harm a person that is blind.
    
    If this aspect (of the reliance on placeholder) is already a failure of 3.3.2, why not add that particular aspect/example - with specific reference to users with cognitive disabilities - directly in 3.3.2's understanding/techniques? You don't have to have separate SCs covering the same aspects for different audiences/users.
    
    P
    --
    Patrick H. Lauke
    
    www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

    twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 23 August 2019 20:29:46 UTC