Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

PS that was a +1 to John's comment, not the CFC.

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 11:16 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> +1
>
> 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 11:09 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>