- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:53:00 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxFNi2MD-1b=tqG6DdkSvp-RepOQGC7nZef3NiM+JrMniQ@mail.gmail.com>
There are going to be organizations the world over that are going to continue to be required to conform with WCAG 2.0 for years to come - so I wouldnt recommend deprecating any techniques in use today to meet 2.0 (unless we got something wrong). I am thinking it would be better to say "This technique is applicable to WCAG 2.0" and "This technique is applicable to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1" and "This technique is applicable to WCAG 2.1"..... Katie Haritos-Shea 703-371-5545 On Jul 20, 2016 5:52 PM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Yup... agree... we *could* do what HTML did. > > "This technique is deprecated for WCAG 2.1". > > -2.1 is backwards compatible, meeting WCAG 2.1 still meets 2.0, > -But 2.0 is not totally forwards compatible. > -Those meeting 2.0 may need to do a few more things to meet 2.1. > > 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 Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL < > ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>We have the authority to do all these things under our 2.1 charter. We >> can make some techniques only apply to WCAG2 and not to 2.1, which is >> completely consistent with backward compatibility, but any changes will >> need a critical mass of consensus and momentum. >> >> >> >> Yes I agree that we do. I was just stating what you did, we will have to >> identify which techniques belong to which WCAG versions. Therefore no need >> to remove a technique that meets WCAG 2.0 SC, but not 2.1 SC – we just need >> to identify it is **only** sufficient for a WCAG 2.0 SC. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** katie ** >> >> >> >> *Katie Haritos-Shea* >> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* >> >> >> >> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com* >> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile* >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545 >> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> >> >> >> >> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:25 PM >> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> >> *Cc:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Andrew Kirkpatrick < >> akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically >> determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques >> Discussion >> >> >> >> There is a lack of consensus to make additional requirements to SC 2.4.4 >> or to remove anything from the definition of programmatically determined >> link text that could be *perceived* as changing the SC in Version 2.1. Nor >> is there momentum to remove techniques. >> >> >> >> We have the authority to do all these things under our 2.1 charter. We >> can make some techniques only apply to WCAG2 and not to 2.1, which is >> completely consistent with backward compatibility, but any changes will >> need a critical mass of consensus and momentum. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL < >> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> About Removing techniques……(mentioned earlier in this thread) >> >> >> >> This issue leads us back to the dated and/or having Techniques mapped to >> a WCAG version discussion we had a few months back. >> >> >> >> We cannot remove Techniques that are sufficient to meet WCAG 2.0. >> >> >> >> We will have to identify which WCAG version Techniques (sufficient, >> advisory and failures) belong to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** katie ** >> >> >> >> *Katie Haritos-Shea* >> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* >> >> >> >> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com* >> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile* >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545 >> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> >> >> >> >> *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:56 PM >> *To:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >> *Subject:* RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically >> determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com >> <akirkpat@adobe.com>] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:45 PM >> >> The proposed changes will pastorally steer developers away from depending >> on the enclosing *sentence* or *paragraph* as the link context and will >> move them towards a more robust programmatic association such as the >> accessible name. There is no change to what passes or fails. >> >> >> >> If there is no change in what passes or fails, we should handle it in >> Understanding. >> >> >> >> There is a change: if you use aria-label or similar mechanisms to >> override link text for an assistive technology, such that the label makes >> the purpose clear but the text of the link does not, it will pass, whereas >> it arguably fails now. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or >> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom >> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail >> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or >> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete >> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your compliance. >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2016 01:53:33 UTC