Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

I support that.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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 Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> All of WCAG 2.0 uses “essentia’” as an exception in only 4 success
> criteria (and 1 incorrectly in “No Timing”).  In 2.1, we’ve introduced it
> 11 more times (half of the new criteria).
>
>
>
> I’d argue we need to re-evaluate each use with a detailed understanding of
> the definition and ensure that:
>
> 1.      We have clear examples where it is supposedly applicable, and
>
> 2.      Those examples actually cannot conform in any other way per the
> definition.
>
> Anything less is just tossing in subjective words to make us feel better.
> We owe it to the end beneficiaries of this document to follow our own
> acceptance criteria.  There’s no reason not to start with the incorrect
> uses identified.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:52 AM
> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Cc:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Repsher, Stephen J <
> stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey
>
>
>
> > [Jason] I’m supportive of the normative change. I also think that
> replacing “essential” with what David proposes constitutes a normative
> change in its own right, as it somewhat clarifies the scope of the
> exception instead of leaving it ill-defined (as the word “essential” does).
>
> I attempted to replace the word essential with the first half of
>
> ​our
>
>  definition
>
> ​ of "essential"​
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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 Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 5, 2017 9:25 AM
>
> Jason says:
>
> >  I don’t think it’s a good idea to qualify requirements in this way
> without persuasive, concrete examples that demonstrate the need for the
> qualification.
>
>
>
> If we don't do that, then ALL content and functionality will be required
> to work, which increases the requirements. This is a normative change, to
> an SC that had consensus.
>
>
>
> *[Jason] I’m supportive of the normative change. I also think that
> replacing “essential” with what David proposes constitutes a normative
> change in its own right, as it somewhat clarifies the scope of the
> exception instead of leaving it ill-defined (as the word “essential” does).*
>
> Alastair says
> > I’d note for this one that we’ve been through the top 50 websites to
> test it, and found relatively few issues. E.g. certain boxes in google
> search results with a fixed height would start overlaping. Most content
> (even navigation menus) were fine, which surprised me a bit.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure in the real world what the implications are. This is new
> territory. We want this standard to be widely adopted for all types of
> content. I think it's imprudent to remove an exception for non essential
> content.  and I think its a normative change that should be evaluated
> separate from an omnibus pull request.
>
> *[Jason] I regard all but the most trivial changes of wording as normative
> – even if the intent is to clarify the scope of an exception or
> qualification. Thus, I don’t think trying to introduce this as a supposedly
> non-normative change is feasible.*
>
> *If we need a separate CfC for each of the substantive changes (i.e.,
> those which don’t simply link to the term “essential” in the glossary),
> then so be it.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>