RE: Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions

> The word "modified" suggests to me the possibility of changes that are not strictly extensions. It would be clearer to say that further requirements may be added to a WCAG 2.0 success criterion. This would clarify that only additional requirements are intended to be created by extensions.

I agree with you, that if you read the sentence of our context you might think that is the case and perhaps that is Sailesh's concern as well.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:29 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick; Sailesh Panchang; WCAG
Subject: RE: Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions



>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]


>>Comment 2:   relating to Section 2.2 examples
>>I find this line a bit unclear:
>>Reference: "Existing success criterion may be modified, but the 
>>resulting change must still satisfy WCAG 2.0 success criteria"
>>
>>Maybe it can be re-worded:
>>"An existing success criterion can be modified by the extension in a 
>>manner that it adds additional conformance requirements without 
>>diluting or decreasing what is already required by the success 
>>criterion in WCAG 2.0.
>
>This change doesn’t quite hit it for me.  I think that the original is more clear.
>What specifically isn’t clear in the original for you?


The word "modified" suggests to me the possibility of changes that are not strictly extensions. It would be clearer to say that further requirements may be added to a WCAG 2.0 success criterion. This would clarify that only additional requirements are intended to be created by extensions.

>We discussed this in a few calls and considered this, but the group 
>ultimately decided that conforming to WCAG 2.0 at the AA level was more 
>important than conforming to the extension at AA if the page is only at 
>A.  It is possible for a page to be AA-conforming but only conform to 
>the an extension at level A, but not the other way around.

I think this is a reasonable result.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 14:35:03 UTC