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

I don't think we want to loose the idea that "some" loss of content and
functionality is acceptable as long as nothing important is lost.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

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 Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.​
>
> 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
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0376.html
> [2]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0374.html
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/372
> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0313.html
> [5]
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comment_Summary_1-4-13
> [6] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/372#issuecomment-331950411
> [7] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-289792275
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>