RE: Regarding merging overlapping SCs



Thanks for doing this. 


I would like to re-iterate that I feel that SC should be a clear, distinct, finite things that can be tested for, or, clearly ignored if out of scope for the content being tested. I think if we explain that meeting and testing specific issues is easier – than testing ‘if this and this and this, then that or that or that’ – outweighs the fear some appear to have to a robust set of requirements. User needs should drive what are providing……IMHO


​​​​​* katie *


Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)


Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <> | Oakton, VA |  <> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <> @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.


From: David MacDonald [] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:45 PM
To: WCAG <>
Subject: Regarding merging overlapping SCs


I've been thinking about the overlapping issues and have a few thoughts and suggestions. There are not too many overlaps but there are a few. Given that our first draft is in 6 weeks, I think we shouldn't focus too much on combining them. I find it's a lot of work that takes away from moving on to other SCs to get them ready... what if we just focus on managing the SCs separately, unless there is an easy win on combining? We could  list possible overlaps in the draft, and let the public respond.  


Here's the groups of overlaps I see. 


Issue 9, 10 and 36.


Issue #2 and 54


Issue 58, 51, 77


Issue 18 and 6


Issue 28 and 29


Issue 51 and 78



I've done the analysis here <> 


David MacDonald


CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn  <> <> 

 <> GitHub <>  


  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities


If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <> 

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 21:02:12 UTC