- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:16:35 +0000
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> By the way, many consider SC 1.4.4 to be addressed by user agents. This is a very dangerous assumption and one that we might need to highlight. I have run into a significant number of sites with content that cannot be reached or content that is obscured when using zoom or lower resolution. Fixed position banners, pop-ups that go off the screen without scrollbars, and techniques that auto fit content to the screen while chopping over overflow when scrolling are examples that break this. Jonathan Jonathan Avila Chief Accessibility Officer SSB BART Group jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com 703.637.8957 (Office) Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! -----Original Message----- From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:14 AM To: josh@interaccess.ie Cc: Alastair Campbell; WCAG Subject: Re: Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Untill there is a version of WCAG that replaces / sunsets 2.0 (like 2.0 replaced 1.0), it is not clear how any individual normative requirement of WCAG 2.0 can be declared officially to be irrelevant. There may be some gov agencies / law that still reference WCAG 1 ... that's fine, but it is not ok now for W3C to say that only some checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 are invalid. WCAG 2.1 is meant to be incremental, right? By the way, many consider SC 1.4.4 to be addressed by user agents. So the Understanding doc is a place to clarify such developments. Also for any Web page, seldom do all Level A and Level AA SCs apply. So those that do not apply because the particular type of content is not present are deemed to have been met or not applicable. And of course 4.1.1 is very relevant to make content robust across platforms / UA - AT combos. Thanks, Sailesh Panchang
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 14:17:11 UTC