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

 Sounds like we have consensus

"WCAG 2.1 will not drop any SCs or label them as overcome by
circumstances."

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 4:36 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Dick [mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 3:34 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
>
>
>
> There are two problems with this.
>
> 1) It doesn't really match the commitment we made to only replace SCs with
> stronger requirements... very inexact wording
>
> 2) Dropping content requirements based on UA behavior seems a little hasty.
>
> I think changes that dropping SCs is for the big overhaul, when we can
> address UAs as well.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Ø  I think this question has merit, and is related to the question of
> what SCs are showing their age, and/or are things that are just not
> substantial fails (or may not represent significant a11y issues any more).
>
>
>
> I don’t think we should/can remove or deprioritize anything for SC 2.1.
> IMO all SC still have some relevance.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* josh@interaccess.ie [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 15, 2016 12:56 AM
> *To:* David MacDonald; WCAG; Jeanne Spellman
> *Subject:* Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
>
> From: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> I think this question has merit, and is related to the question of what
> SCs are showing their age, and/or are things that are just not substantial
> fails (or may not represent significant a11y issues any more).
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 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>
>
>
>