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

​>I respectfully disagree with you David.  Carrying around a physical
keyboard with my iPhone so I can press control+M to mute audio is not
acceptable.

I'm in agreement with your position, and I think it comes back to what​ we
established on that long thread that resulted in the proposal issue 197

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197

If the group adopts the amendment to Conformance Criteria 2 I think it will
be explicit, and people knowledgeable on WCAG will be in full agreement
about whether the mobile view can independently represent the full page and
therefor must be conforming on it's on right even if the full screen view
conforms. The full screen view cannot be a conforming alternative to the
mobile view of the same page.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
> wrote:

> Ø  I don't see how I can ever fail someone on 1.4.2 anymore, thanks to
> James pointing this out.  If we are looking to not cause SC bloat with the
> new SCs, perhaps we can make a new category for SCs which have been largely
> overcome by advances in User Agents etc... which still apply to 2.1 but are
> folded away somewhere so 2.1 is not bloated with SCs that developers don't
> need to worry about.
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree with you David.  Carrying around a physical
> keyboard with my iPhone so I can press control+M to mute audio is not
> acceptable.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:58 PM
> *To:* John Foliot
> *Cc:* WCAG; Jeanne Spellman; James Nurthen
> *Subject:* Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
>
>
>
> I agree it would be difficult to drop anything and make make 2.1 backward
> compatible, unless an SC has been overcome by events, and is automatically
> met.
>
>
>
> A candidate might be...
>
>
>
> 1.4.2 audio control, because user agents are implementing a way to mute a
> tab without muting system audio. On Firefox Control+M mutes any sound
> coming from the page and allows the screen reader to read the page. The SC
> says "a mechanism is available" so now its available in a major browser...
> and will soon be in all browsers (hopefully). But for WCAG one stack is
> enough.
>
>
>
> I don't see how I can ever fail someone on 1.4.2 anymore, thanks to James
> pointing this out.  If we are looking to not cause SC bloat with the new
> SCs, perhaps we can make a new category for SCs which have been largely
> overcome by advances in User Agents etc... which still apply to 2.1 but are
> folded away somewhere so 2.1 is not bloated with SCs that developers don't
> need to worry about.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:05 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> I don't think I'm understanding the question - I can't see how we could
> remove a SC from a WCAG 2.1 and preserve a backwards-compatible path to
> 2.0.
>
>
>
> Again, WCAG is about content requirements AFAIK, and while techniques and
> patterns can come and go, the principles and Success Criteria remain, and I
> would be concerned about dropping a Success Criteria simply on the basis
> that newer technologies seemingly make it easier to achieve any individual
> Success Criteria. That, in and of itself, would not justify removing a
> requirement in my mind (only make it simpler for content authors to meet
> the Success Criteria).
>
>
>
> Can you elaborate more please?  Thanks.
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:00 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> On today's mobile call Jeanne brought up an important consideration as we
> make the WCAG 2.1. If 2.1 seems much longer than 2.0 we may be facing
> resistance to the new version. It came up in the context of the question
> about whether we should try to roll new SCs into the existing SCs where
> possible, or introduce new SCs.
>
>
>
> But I think the issue raises another question.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Foliot
>
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>
> Deque Systems Inc.
>
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>