Re: SC 1.4.11

> I suggest we not get too strident in the interpretation of our new SCs

I'll offer the counter-argument.

Today, all of the new SC are *optional *for legal compliance. Nobody is
going to get dragged into a court of law today, or for the foreseeable
future because they don't have good focus indication. So why start off
soft? Why not ask for what we really need and want now, when there isn't as
much pressure? Organizations and developers who are going to embrace this
new SC today are doing it because "it's the right thing to do", not because
it's what they HAVE to do, so we have a perfect opportunity to establish
precedent here by being "strict" (or, as I keep saying, "precise").

I'd rather see a precise interpretation that gets relaxed over time (if
required), than vice-versa.

It's kind of like establishing bed-time for your toddler, before they start
going to school every day, because once that starts they've already learned
the good habit. Failing to establish a bed-time early however alternatively
sees cranky 5 & 6-year-olds without enough sleep making teachers day a
misery.

JF

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:34 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> > This SC is aimed at improving the experience for low vision users, the
> focus indicator is generally for keyboard users.
>
> And...?
>
> I fail to see how a primary target audience for any given SC should
> somehow soften or weaken the SC.  I'll respond to that statement with:
>
> *This SC is aimed at improving the experience for users, and the focus
> indicator is generally for those users who require it. *
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspective-videos/contrast/ - "...essential for
> people with disabilities and useful for all."
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:24 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > ... IMO within the twin cultures of MVP and minimum compliance without
>> the push of that 30% nothing more would be done.
>>
>> I hope that proves to be true. History will tell ...  In the meantime, I
>> suggest we not get too strident in the interpretation of our new SCs, until
>> we see what happens with what we've put out there. We
>> ​ say in our standard​
>> "The Working Group considers that WCAG 2.1 incrementally advances web
>> content accessibility guidance for all these areas..."
>>
>> Let's keep it "incremental" ...
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
>> josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> David MacDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> These fast implementation cycles are based on the AGILE world... and in
>>> the AGILE world we also have Minimal Viable product (MVP) delivery which
>>> I'd say we've overstepped a bit with a 30% increase with this version.
>>> Let's not widen it further right now.
>>>
>>> While I hear your point, I don't think we have overstepped at all. IMO
>>> within the twin cultures of MVP and minimum compliance without the push
>>> of that 30% nothing more would be done.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joshue O Connor
>>> Director | InterAccess.ie
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion