From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com] Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 10:50 AM 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). [Jason] This result tells me straight away that more work is needed. WCAG 2.0, as it stands, has already inspired concerns about reliable testability; making liberal use of terms such as “essential” and synonyms thereof (otherwise than in accord with the WCAG 2.0 definition of “essential”) would make those problems much worse, not better. I agree with Steve that each case needs to be analyzed and appropriate changes made. ________________________________ 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 Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:54:23 UTC