- From: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:04:33 +0100
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jonathan Avila wrote: > I do have some questions about the term "compatible" and "conflict" and would like to know more about what that means and how they might be reconciled. At this stage - take those terms on face value. However, I do agree that are both in need of firmer definition. > As it is some AAA guidelines may be good for one disability group but not for another, e.g. line spacing under SC 1.4.8 requires1.5 which is not good for some people like me with low vision. So, in short, we need a way for flexibility of content that allows for multiple modes of presentation that work for people with low vision and people with cognitive disabilities. Where possible we aim for extensions to be compatible with the broadest range of user requirements, and we ultimately aim for harmony between these various user requirements. There will be times when they may apparently 'conflict'. What we want to do in these cases is somehow reduce this conflict, but also to not weaken conformance requirements for WCAG in any of our extensions. Ultimately we need to find a way of raising the bar that meets the needs of all user groups in the process. To some degree this process will be trial and error initially, and through focusing on cases like the one you outline - which is very useful. At this stage, these issues will be looked at on a cases by case basis - initially internally by respective TFs, and then with extension proposals brought to the wider group for consensus. We also need TFs to be aware (as far as humanly possible) of where their suggested extensions may not be in accord with the needs of other user groups. We realise that this is potentially a rather difficult prospect, as it is impractical to try to anticipate all edge or even common cases, but try we will. Thanks Josh
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 10:05:19 UTC