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

That's right... there is a certain amount of ambiguity in 2.0.
44 out of 45 evaluators that I surveyed on Twitter said that a mobile view
of a website is covered in WCAG 2.0 and a conforming desktop view cannot be
considered an conforming alternative to an inaccessible mobile view.  But
it wasn't written into the conformance section.

The note was proposed to remove ambiguity, and ensure mobile views were
covered... but with the explicit SC on reflow which handles mobile, I'm now
coming to believe the note on screen sizes will cause more confusion than
clarity ...  Say they have breakpoints at 1280px, 900px, 600px, and 400px.
All of those need to be tested and the 320 px as per reflow will also need
to be tested...

None of us tested ALL sizes before, we just checked the mobile view. So the
explicit note makes us more diligent but also more obligated.

 I'm afraid that the note which explicitly says every view for different
sizes needs to be conforming will cause confusion, so I'm recanting...

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, May 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> 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.
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-reqs
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23conformance-reqs&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=aKMU2voAwLnzKiVt%2BrM3gygMxmUt4AIrr3A767ez%2BXs%3D&reserved=0>
> 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.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=z0Fj6k8Mzt4SBkaageLDrYB%2F4Ttc7BgozxUB7zwWnp8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=RpL8yDJSe1I50UIuSm%2B54md5keJNz3VYwSW3FOu6S3I%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=uTzleNA%2FR0yqO1CV2OlAkBTFg7dSm7hDuc2qeY736Vs%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C757859962e714e07060608d5af8ce087%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636607941959395340&sdata=jq7wGuSDt%2FIwMveVStH29R3B56koVHNE%2F%2BCfYCyG2mw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  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.
> ------------------------------
>