Re: Moving Issues 62, 63, 71 to the conformance section

Quick reply while I'm not really online but on holiday: yes, let's. :)

P

On 17/07/2017 16:33, David MacDonald wrote:
>> So we argued (many many moons ago...2 years ago or so on the mailing
> list?) that it's not a different version in this case, since the page is
> still exactly the same, it just changes
>
> I agree we successfully argued through it and it seemed a shoe in to
> introduce some formal language to the understand
> ​ing​
> conformance section of WCAG 2. But it tanked when trying to get it
> through. So that's when it was moved to WCAG 2.1
> ​ and it has been taking on water there also.​
>
>
> Should we cycle back to issue #197 in WCAG 2 and try to formalize that?
> This is the ideal way to close the loop on this.
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197
> ​ ​
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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 Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:43 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org
> <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>]
>     > Reponsive/adaptive sites on the other hand don't offer a "switch". They simply
>     > "are"...they adapt to whatever the environment in the client is, and dynamically
>     > change as the environment changes. So we argued (many many moons ago...2
>     > years ago or so on the mailing list?) that it's not a different version in this case,
>     > since the page is still exactly the same, it just changes.
>     [Jason] That's a powerful argument. Note that the current definition
>     of "Web page" supports this position in that it is explicitly
>     connected to the URI.
>     >
>     > There's obviously gray area here in cases where the same URL does some
>     > server-side detection and, even though it's the same URL, serves different
>     > content depending on things like user agent...but in general I thought we agreed
>     > that unless there's an explicit mechanism on the page (like a "go to desktop
>     > version / go to mobile version") that the user can toggle to force loading of a
>     > specific alternative view, then the page counts as a single page, and its different
>     > states triggered by things the user can't easily control (e.g. screen size, user
>     > agent string, presence of a sensor or not) cannot be treated as separate
>     > alternatives.
>     [Jason] I agree, and it seems clear that the definition of "Web
>     page" ensures that this is the case.
>
>
>     ________________________________
>
>     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.
>
>     ________________________________
>
>

-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:04:05 UTC