W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2017

RE: Essential definition substitution

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:41:44 +0000
To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY4PR08MB2822E97D01A4DD1363E338F4E3750@CY4PR08MB2822.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Steve (et al.), thanks for your work on this.  I filled out the survey before seeing your email and the GitHub edit.  I do not spot any contradictions, but I thought I would add a little bit to the discussion...

Please note that the 2.0 definition for essential includes "the content" so the term cannot be used to sensibly qualify "content".


To be consistent with the WCAG 2.0 definition and use of "essential", the term can only qualify the barrier, not the content.

From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 2:47 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Essential definition substitution

Hi folks,

In anticipation of the agenda item tomorrow to continue the discussion of "essential" changes, I posted the following comment to the issue:

It's tough on the guy analyzing this that survey comments and call minutes continue to get wrapped up in only the 1st half of the "essential" glossary definition.  It's certainly understandable since that part is in line with how we might apply a dictionary definition.  But the problem is that when the 2nd half is considered, things stop making sense quick if not used correctly.

Please take a look at this substitution comment and either update the survey or discuss where my analysis has gone awry.  Hoping this will help smooth discussion tomorrow.  Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 13:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:17 UTC