Re: Someone has mapped WCAG 2.1 back to WCAG 2.0

On 20/06/2018 14:42, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Jon,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this. Am I misreading it or is the author suggesting 
> that the 2.1 SC are replacing 2.0 SC?

No, more the opposite, a la "if you want to flag failures of 2.1 SCs, 
but you're still stuck with reporting against 2.0, here's the SCs where 
you can cram those failures in".

I think it's an interesting idea, but quite flawed. Commented as such 
(e.g. how is a failure of 1.3.4 orientation in any way related to 1.3.1 
info and relationships?)

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2018 14:23:45 UTC