Re[2]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
[...]

>From: "David MacDonald"
>
> > Are there any SCs that have been overcome sufficiently by the 
>environment, OS, User Agents etc. that
>
> > we can remove them without breaking the acceptance requirement of 
>WCAG 2.1 that meeting
>
> > it also meets 2.0?
>
>
>
>From our testing, I would struggle to point out anything at A/AA that 
>doesn’t come up regularly.
>
>
>
>There are somethings that don’t come up often due to the type of 
>content we are testing. E.g. We might not audit anything with videos 
>for a while so 1.2 doesn’t come up. But then we get to some different 
>content and it does. Same for input assistance, three flashes, and 
>timing adjustable.
>
>
>
>The only one that hasn’t come for a long time is images-as-text, now 
>that fonts are better supported in browsers. However, I’d be reluctant 
>to drop that in case a new user-agent comes out that doesn’t have good 
>support, or web design trends change.
>
+1, 4.1.1 Parsing, could also be a candidate?

>
>(Hypothetical example: Someone notices that for performance reasons it 
>is more effective to do your headings as images that are loaded 
>per-page rather than a 200k font upfront, and comes up with a fancy 
>node system for converting text to images automatically. Hmm, that 
>could actually work, better not tell anyone!)
>
>
>
>On the basis of our usage we could drop the entirety of AAA,
>
Like that's gonna happen!

>however, I’m not recommending that! I think it acts as a useful framing 
>effect [1], and the existence of AAA provides a ‘stretch goal’ and 
>means that more people aim for full AA.
>
To be a playful devil here, does it really? For most organisations, if 
they get to AA - that's just it. They happily leave it there and sail 
off into the sunset. Anyway, I suggest we revisit our conformance levels 
within Silver - but I think that is out of scope for 2.1.

[Chair hat off]
I'm happy that the debate continues!

Thanks

Josh

>
>
>
>For the purpose of 2.1, I’d leave all the 2.0 ones in place or 
>consciously combine them with new ones (especially at AAA), but I 
>wouldn’t drop any.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>-Alastair
>
>
>
>1] https://whywereason.com/2011/10/14/the-price-of-framing-anchoring/
>
>
>
>
>