- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:42:34 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Refer to Josh's poser: "NOTE: As a thought experiment, one possible way to do that would be to have a 'MonoSpec' extension which combined the output from all TFs (Mobile/Cognitive/Low Vision) in a single spec. Potentially where care is taken to ensure that these extension SCs are fully compatible with each other there may be less 'conflict'". Comment: A single extension doc that lists all additional requirements will result in loss of flexibility , more time and complications for approving / making changes to it ... a critical issue the extension process has a goal of addressing. Also, there should not be an assumption that extension will always be at level AA. An extension may list one or more requirements and they all may be Level A or Level AA or a combination of the two. Now suppose for instance, there is an extension that has a single requirement that bumps SC 2.4.7 to Level A. (this is just an example) A content author who has claimed conformance with WCAG 2.0 Level A may additionally choose to comply with this single extension too. The Web content will still meet only Level A requirements and not AA. In other words, : 1. Web content that meets WCAG 2.0 can additionally conform with an extension that only has Level A requirements. 2. Web content that meets WCAG 2.0 AA can additionally conform with an extension that has : - only Level A requirements or - only Level AA requirements or or an extension that has a mix of the two. Now, it may be a good idea to put Level A and Level AA requirements in separate extensions too even if it is the same topic area, like, low vision or cognitive, etc. and not have them in a single doc. Content authors may then be able to fully comply with an entire extension selectively. The only point to note then is that a website may need to list all extensions it complies with as a suffix to WCAG 2.0 ... akin to an highly accomplished individual listing multiple academic qualifications after his name! I second Greg ...there may not be a need for a policy statement that states extensions must / should not conflict with each other. Task groups will communicate with each other, be aware of content of extensions that have become recommendations and will be subject to oversight / due diligence review by the WG too. The extension may document known / acceptable conflicts just as WCAG 2.0 says that even content that passes Level AA may not be able to meet the needs of all user groups / people with multiple disabilities. Thanks and best regards, Sailesh Panchang
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 18:43:03 UTC