- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:36:29 -0500
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
1. I understand that "The extension is not changing the SC in WCAG 2.0, it is modifying the SC in the context of the extension", then should not the statement, "Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria ..." be worded differently to convey what is intended? 2. Yes, "All of the details regarding numbering and association with the techniques are details that do need to be figured out", but this extension requirements doc should explicitly state that the SCs in an extension will not duplicate an SC# from the WCAG 2.0. Else, an SC in the extension that has a number identical to a WCAG 2.0 SC will surely create confusion as Greg pointed out in his first email especially with regard to documentation for techniques and understanding. It may not be very problematic for some changes e.g. SC 1.4.3 in the extension say, only changes the ratio from 4.5:1 to 5:1 to make it stronger. But consider what will happen, if say, SC 3.3.2 in the extension begins with "Labels and instructions" instead of "Labels or instructions". I believe the above should be addressed, then the statement suggested by David will absolutely fit in and not create room for any confusion. Thanks, Sailesh Panchang
Received on Monday, 22 February 2016 14:36:58 UTC