Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion

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