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

The confusion will need to be addressed in Understanding. We are at PR now…

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 16:02
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Suggest we reverse my proposal for the conformance note on breakpoints
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 15:59

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



CanAdapt 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%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C2f0f46a124a54cee95e608d5af9e75a2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636608017470134069&sdata=Zea0WSc214Pk%2Bp8pCT2pqNWAdgKf3X9Ihsq%2BzhN0bGI%3D&reserved=0>

twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C2f0f46a124a54cee95e608d5af9e75a2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636608017470134069&sdata=nATXy6Y8qubLxCEeWkDrF0Kza9GrJ0n3qqAWDD%2Fs0s4%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C2f0f46a124a54cee95e608d5af9e75a2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636608017470134069&sdata=FdCI0A%2FMH8%2FpBqsljlvVj3AnJBlJMUCJ%2FUYwvTBgHNo%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%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C2f0f46a124a54cee95e608d5af9e75a2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636608017470134069&sdata=Tv1IrnpgjzpDrAb7ftOnjZ6AZJyOJ4bLIy00WO9OIzA%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%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C2f0f46a124a54cee95e608d5af9e75a2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636608017470134069&sdata=arWbFBA83Ce%2BwxKoDfzqnw4HgIo%2FOvsP8YVIGigfV2A%3D&reserved=0>

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto: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<mailto:david@can-adapt.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:53 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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



CanAdapt 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.

________________________________