RE: New requirement for conforming alternate versions

I assume you don’t mean providing that guidance within the normative text?  We would need to update the associated section in Understanding and perhaps add or modify some techniques and failures, but that should be pretty straightforward.


From: Michael Gower []
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 10:11 AM
To: White, Jason J <>
Cc: David MacDonald <>; Repsher, Stephen J <>;
Subject: RE: New requirement for conforming alternate versions

We considered this same situation when addressing the new Authoring Tool template requirements in Revised 508. I think some guidance on labelling and location is appropriate, and this seems pretty solid.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3<>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034

From:        "White, Jason J" <<>>
To:        David MacDonald <<>>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <<>>
Cc:        "<>" <<>>
Date:        2017-08-03 07:28 AM
Subject:        RE: New requirement for conforming alternate versions

On a quick review, it appears well written and carefully specified to me, with desirable additions to the existing definition.

From: David MacDonald []
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:21 AM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <<>>
Subject: Re: New requirement for conforming alternate versions

I support the addition for WCAG 2.1

David MacDonald

CanAdaptSolutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn <><>

  Adapting the web to allusers
            Including those with disabilities

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

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <<>> wrote:
Currently, The requirements for a conforming alternate version are laid out in the glossary definition.  However, there are two big things missing from these requirements in my opinion:

1.      There’s no requirement to actually label a link to a conforming alternate as such, and thus how would the user know?

2.      There’s no requirement to tell the user what is altered so they can judge whether they need such a version.

I filed this a few weeks ago on GitHub and hoping to get some more quick feedback:<>

And here’s the new definition being proposed:<>

Steve Repsher
Twitter<>| LinkedIn<>| GitHub<>


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 Friday, 4 August 2017 14:42:05 UTC