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



>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
>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.
>
>Jason, can you explain more about why modified doesn’t say “extension” to
>you?  A simple example of a modification (I’m making this one up, so don’t
>read anything into it) could be if we decided to make a change so that the
>color contrast ration was 5:1 instead of 4.5:1.  This might be all that is modified
>in the success criteria, but it would be an extension of the original SC.  Does
>that help?

I should have explained the concern better, which was that "modification" doesn't unambiguously rule out changes that would alter the application of the original success criterion. My suggestion was to rewrite the statement to be unambiguous in this regard.

I think we're in agreement on the substance: the best way to state additional requirements is sometimes to rewrite the text of an existing success criterion.


________________________________

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 14:52:31 UTC