Re: requirement 8

My head is spinning…


> Now, if we look at the statement as talking about the introduction of requirements in WCAG at a level basis I think that the main issue is that bringing one of the requirements from 2.0 which builds on a lower-level requirement may introduce redundancy. 

trying to parse this.       can you give an example of what you mean ?  or say in other words? 

> This seems to be possible with 1.4.6, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 2.1.3, 2.3.2, 2.4.9, 3.3.6 (7 SC) - not all of these changes have been proposed.

> Four of the seven SC are simply removing an exception in the A/AA criteria: 1.4.9, 2.1.3, 2.3.2, 3.3.6

I will have to look at these. In general I would be very cautious about removing exceptions.   Often they were the only reason an SC could pass (be generally applicable — or be acceptable)


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> If you change the level — the SC is not required at the new level when it was not required at that level before.  Hence #8 does not apply. 
> 
> AWK: If we change the level we are not introducing a new requirement to wcag we are just changing at what level it applies. I agree that the parenthetical statement (“level changes are not regarded as new requirements”) wouldn’t be needed but it is just provided as a clarification.
> 
> Now, if we look at the statement as talking about the introduction of requirements in WCAG at a level basis I think that the main issue is that bringing one of the requirements from 2.0 which builds on a lower-level requirement may introduce redundancy. 
> 
> This seems to be possible with 1.4.6, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 2.1.3, 2.3.2, 2.4.9, 3.3.6 (7 SC) - not all of these changes have been proposed.
> Four of the seven SC are simply removing an exception in the A/AA criteria: 1.4.9, 2.1.3, 2.3.2, 3.3.6
> AWK
> 
> 
>> On Jan 3, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Gregg and Lisa,
>> 
>> For reference we are talking about this list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria>
>> 
>> #8 reads (including the prefix): 
>> Success Criteria shall avoid creating a requirement for something that is already required by an existing Success Criterion.
>> 
>> I think that your suggestion is fine in that we are already indicating that a level change is acceptable with #5 (Ensure for revised Success Criteria that pages that meet the revised guidance continue to meet the corresponding WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria).
>> 
>> I think that perhaps the solution is that we just add “(Level changes are not regarded as new requirements)”. Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> 
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>> Adobe 
>> 
>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
>> 
>