- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:20:09 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxHO4=hXn0aZhujGcU-95SbKZUdfJamMH66K7BHUUqnSbw@mail.gmail.com>
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