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

Yeah!!

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Jul 18, 2016 6:21 PM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>  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>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2016 00:20:39 UTC