Re: SC 1.4.11

...and I'm not saying to widen it, I'm saying we use the precise reading of the exception clause, which both Wilco and Eric have agreed is in keeping with my proffered interpretation: that "components" may be exempt, "states" are not.

I believe that the group is in agreement that we are trying to create the understanding document for the reading of the exception clause, but the reading is not as precise as we would like (as evidenced by this discussion).

My concern is that states are defined as properties of UI Components, so they are not easily separated.

Visual information required to identify user interface components<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-user-interface-components&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662186395&sdata=dj8smzfNMQgCI8PTFXesy7%2FuPWAXkChvPmPV2%2FgMaGw%3D&reserved=0> and states<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-states&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662196400&sdata=Dre0NqJDa%2Fbys8Htk9Tc6AsN%2FuP2wlEF7oBGl7ZHDrw%3D&reserved=0>, except for inactive components or where the appearance of the component
​
OR STATE​
​ ​
is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author;
​
​...which, BTW, even those on the LVTF have admitted was originally the intent of this SC (before it got merged and mangled)​.

But the SC doesn’t say this. Perhaps it would be better if it did, but that would require additional review for Implementability.

I am at a loss as to why we don't want to pursue that approach.

The main concern I have is whether we offer an interpretation that suggests that the WG is exceeding the requirements in the written language and therefore puts the credibility of the working group interpretations in question. As you know, the Understanding document isn’t normative so if a site is being evaluated against WCAG 2.1 in a complaint only the spec is normative. We want the understanding document to be perceived as authoritative, and if we offer interpretations that are not able to be defended then we put that at risk.

My take, and the predominant view from the call on Tuesday, was that we should take the “narrow” approach. Perhaps some people’s views have changed as a result of this discussion, but we will know with the changes to the understanding document coming up soon.

AWK

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:47 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
> I fail to see how a primary target audience for any given SC should somehow soften or weaken the SC.

I'm not suggesting we soften it, I'm suggesting we don't widen it.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662206409&sdata=5%2B6rHve1oZxF8Bo6yRzVR9iUp%2BIxgwVwkzbJmlj7x7s%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662216414&sdata=oIBCXNjkc8v0yM9uIESj5JW6BLP7L%2Bd88kcjEQeEeto%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662216414&sdata=tlrAPV7aXQkWqdvN5uqVeDq970rOBeNIxQlChahASVg%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662226423&sdata=e6a0yDumTVM%2FHt17oHpLRFb2tv8B%2FDmrKUAXMjHGGZM%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662226423&sdata=0VhGJh%2Bhn3lq91dO1JtAVuL7tC4B3Iyz5GxRRR%2FqQGw%3D&reserved=0>

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:34 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto: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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2Fperspective-videos%2Fcontrast%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662236428&sdata=lgD0tVQtRqOdftKNkZd%2Fsk94OWQholHZbzLBlAzg3%2B0%3D&reserved=0> - "...essential for people with disabilities and useful for all."

JF



On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:24 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto: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



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662236428&sdata=F5pWhmlBHpFON8EFV%2ByYu0wh46RniHQ9vWO%2Bt8%2BkqZo%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662246438&sdata=%2FPjzFCnr%2FJKT0ZG6uTHiaXyi7J55ORQYt9DphJGdlrw%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662246438&sdata=B%2BoTAlKH0m0Vir38wc9f%2BaOAEvCbe2su7AWqImH08yc%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662256447&sdata=2hA2wTcr65aiTOU9M7m6E3KtbKkVMBMnnyHiEaMSL6Y%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%7C24e0326216074f551c0f08d5d8482145%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636652726662256447&sdata=Rc2a9E6sLAK1IcwDNsmVSEbyH7xb91PbN94%2FcI4bviY%3D&reserved=0>

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie<mailto: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<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion




--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion