Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

Jason wrote:

> *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.*

+1

Our initial survey identified a number of instances where linking the term
to the definition was all that was being asked for, and dealing with *that*
request
​/work-item​
in an omnibus fashion makes sense. For each other instance, where there
potentially will be substantive changes, they should each be discussed and
agreed to individually, as part of our process.

JF

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:49 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion