- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:24:17 -0400
- To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP50008B4DB357D693192818FE090@phx.gbl>
Sure 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 9:53 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 03:24:50 UTC