W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2018

RE: Suggest we reverse my proposal for the conformance note on breakpoints

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 18:12:02 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0701MB1743BEA089E8DC5EB1A9029AAB810@CY1PR0701MB1743.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
I don’t think I understand your position here, David. On the one hand, you’re arguing that the note does not constitute a substantive change to the conformance requirements; it’s merely a clarification of what is already implicit in the Guidelines.

On the other hand, you’re suggesting that we should remove it due to the costs it creates in conformance evaluations. However, if the Note doesn’t constitute a substantive change, then it can’t affect the scope and nature of the testing required to evaluate conformance. So your rationale for removing it appears to contradict the claim that it doesn’t modify conformance requirements. Can you clarify?

If the note has any normative effect, then we can’t remove it in 2.1 anyway at this point.

From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:53 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Suggest we reverse my proposal for the conformance note on breakpoints

On today's call (may 1 , 2018) we talked a lot about reflow, text size and and conformance breakpoints. I was the origin of the of the conformance note proposal<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959385331&sdata=tJtLLAqf9cCL84UDLLJcYfmapprETqMuWtL3ywlipEw%3D&reserved=0>.

My position at the time was that WCAG 2.0 is already being interpreted to include mobile breakpoints so that it was not a change change, just a clarification.

One of the disadvantages of working in separate task forces is that there can be overlap. Currently the Reflow Text SC overlaps a lot with this, and it solves the problem I was trying to solve with this conformance note.

My concern now is that we're now explicitly requiring testing at every break point AND at 320 px. That is a lot of testing a lot of overlap and it could increase liability for both testing companies and companies obligated to meet WCAG.

So my recommendation is that we remove the note. In issue #19<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=Ofh5uIxmxRRa86MYcussNbT3WJghj4KzTt5xkAywumQ%3D&reserved=0> I make it clear that it is not extending the requirements of WCAG 2.0 so it would not be a substantive change.
It's in the section under full pages and it reads

NOTE New A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically presented by the page for various screen sizes (e.g. variations in a responsive Web page). Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to conform.

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Mobile:  613.806.9005





  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=zRDhfeoKIqLjvWZyGipKiNKcDZYL5PrOVJVFeD%2FioIw%3D&reserved=0>


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 Tuesday, 1 May 2018 18:12:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:26 UTC