RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

I should have added the following in bold and underlined.

2.2 Ensure that web pages which conform to WCAG 2.0 with an extension also conform to WCAG 2.0 if the extension dependent code/feature is not part of the review.

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: ALAN SMITH
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Alastair Campbell; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'
Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

Alastair,

I like the wording you have that has not bee clear so far: “it must also conform to WCAG 2.0 if the extension is not considered in the conformance review.”

A reduced version of that wording needs to be in the 2.2 definition because it is not possible to conform to the extension and “also” confirm to WCAG 2.0 on its own.” 

If that were the case, why have the extension?

Perhaps something like this:

2.2 Ensure that web pages which conform to WCAG 2.0 with an extension also conform to WCAG 2.0 if the extension is not part of the review.


Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Alastair Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:10 PM
To: 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'
Subject: Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

To follow up to myself (how meta), the 2.2 text sans-modification terminology could be:

2.2 Ensure that web pages which conform to WCAG 2.0 with an extension also conform to WCAG 2.0 on its own

Extension specifications are expected to offer additional guidelines and success criteria but extensions may not weaken what is required of web content. The result of this is that when a page conforms to WCAG 2.0 with an extension, it must also conform to WCAG 2.0 if the extension is not considered in the conformance review.

Example 1
• An existing success criterion may change in priority from a lower level to a higher level, but not the other way around. For example, a Level A Success Criteria cannot move to Level AA.
• A new success criterion may be added.
-Alastair