- From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:27:48 -0400
- To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: "'David MacDonald'" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Jason J White'" <jjwhite@ets.org>, "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Message-ID: <006601d1e310$a1729d00$e457d700$@gmail.com>
Gregg said: are you going to create a Understanding WCAG 2.1?
I certainly have been working under that assumption…..:-)
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:42 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion
hmmmm
I don’t think you want to say “deprecated” but you can say it is not sufficient to meet 2.1
By the way - the techniques are all in Understanding WCAG 2.0
are you going to create a Understanding WCAG 2.1?
I highly urge you to do so — although it will take probably a year to do so — and a lot of dedicated people. But without it — WCAG 2.1 will be as useless as 2.0 would have been without one.
ALSO - it is a GREAT way to discover that there is something wrong with an SC in 2.1 or you can’t figure out how to meet an SC or two (we sure did in WCAG 2.0 !
gregg
On Jul 20, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:613.235.4902>
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> GitHub
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 <mailto: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 <tel:703-371-5545> | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545> | <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca> ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:25 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> >
Cc: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org> >; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:613.235.4902>
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> GitHub
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 <mailto: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 <tel:703-371-5545> | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545> | <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog
From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org> ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:56 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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]
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 05:28:27 UTC