Deal with the word "essential" now or tackle it later?

Hi Jason, David, Andrew, Steve, and all,

Regarding the latest proposed adapting text SC text, Jason wrote [1]:
>> It doesn't eliminate the use of the word "essential", which is not here used in accordance with its WCAG definition.

David wrote [2]:
> That word is in both proposals so I think we should consider that separately... perhaps you can file an issue on github.‚Äč

It seems we already have an open issue for Use of "essential" for
several SCs including adapting text. It is #372 [3].

Andrew, Issue 372 wasn't listed for Adapting Text  SC (or any of the
others) in your November 6 email [4] so I didn't add to the the Wiki
page with the rest of proposals for resolving Adapting Text issues
[5]. Should I add it to the Wiki page? Or should we deal with Issue
372 later?

On September 25, Steve commented in Issue 372 regarding the use of the
word "essential" in the Adapting Text SC. He said [6]:

"The criterion refers to "no loss of essential content or
functionality". The word seems to have been introduced by @awkawk in a
comment way back in March [7], but I could not find any rationale for
its inclusion in the language (i.e. an example of content loss that
would be acceptable). Given this, and the fact that both Resize Text
and Zoom Content refer to "loss of content or functionality" without
using essential, I propose to simply remove the word from this SC."

Andrew and all, would you be able to live with removing the word
essential from the SC?

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,


Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2017 12:57:41 UTC