RE: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:05 AM
> I would separate "X is essential to Y', from "essential" in the more general sense.
>
> At one end of the scale, this is quite specific:
> "graphical objects that are essential for understanding"
>
> It is about an attribute of the content, not the user's goal or the pages's
> purpose.
> ‚Äč
> For me, it gets shakey is when you have to make assumptions about what the
> user (or site owner?) thinks is essential for that page. (Which Jason covered so I
> won't expound on that.)
[Jason] This is the right distinction to draw. I think "essential to an activity", when used as an exception to a requirement, is defensible in that it only applies to content that has a single, clear purpose which would be undermined by the requirement. For example, timing may be essential to certain activities, but the exception only applies where there is an unambiguous, intended purpose.
For the reasons that we've discussed, I think broader uses of "essential", "critical", and similar terms are highly problematic.


________________________________

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, 23 February 2017 15:32:19 UTC