I think we have a conundrum, unless we qualify the requirement. That is because:
1) As soon as we are prescriptive there will be conflicts because different users have different needs (as Wayne has pointed out wrt contrast. I never would have realized 1.4.3 would be an issue for some users; thank you Wayne for the insight); and
2) The more prescriptive we can be the more helpful we will be to designers, developers and evaluators who have to apply the criteria.
Also, although we can (fingers crossed) anticipate increased flexibility in website presentation, it is not true today.
What to do?
It seems to me that we can either add some wiggle room by 1) saying, "whenever possible" extensions should not conflict with one another, and when they do, describe why, and if possible, how best to proceed, or 2) remove the sentence entirely because there will inevitably be conflicts.
Mike
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Ah. Thank you very much for the clarification.
Can you perhaps give an example of a SC conflict between extensions
based on your definition?
And suggest example language for the compatibility section that you
could live with?
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Extensions_Framework#Ensure_that_all_WCAG_extensions_are_compatible_with_each_other
Thank you.
Kindest Regards,
Laura
On 10/21/15, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> >But we diverge from the main topic of the thread: "Extension
> conflict/compatibility requirement"
>
> Not really. If we are basing the discussion (as per Wayne's email) on our
> definition of accessibility, then we would need to agree on that definition.
> (With my definition user conflicts are inevitable. ) I am not saying we
> should agree on the definition, but we definitely should not be deciding
> these issues based on a definition that does not have consensuses, or is
> only part of the picture.
> All the best
> Lisa
--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 14:25:38 UTC