RE: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

It is important to note that 1.3.5 is subject to the same arguments about lack of implementation support as 1.3.4. Placing it at Level AAA does not reduce the requirement for there to be interoperable implementations – and “accessibility support” demonstrated – during the Candidate Recommendation period. See my other recent post for a proposal to address 1.3.4.

The only solution to 1.3.5 that comes to mind would be to remove it for now, or, if implementations are expected to emerge during the CR period, mark it as “at risk”.

From: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:09 AM
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues



Detlev Fischer wrote:

•  No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.
•  Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove some, reference externally, or what
•  Security concerns/conflicts.
Totes +1 to Detlev. Thanks for summarising the issues Andrew.

Some brief comments below:

  1.  No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.
Even if English only, at this initial stage I think thats ok - as long as there is one that satisfies the requirements of our Exit Criteria.

  1.  Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove some, reference externally, or what
The case can be made that this work has to start somewhere - what we could do it profer/offer the list but make the case that users can define their own as long as the intent of the SC is satisfied.

  1.  Security concerns/conflicts.
IMO These concerns will be there no matter what way we choose to slice this.

Detlev said:

My proposal would be to have a straw poll at the outset whether we A - move the SC to 2.2 for more discussion and solving the issues raised in due course B - keep it on level AAA and wade through issues C - keep it on current level and wade through issues

Again +1 to this - rather than getting lost in the weeds over this again today and take from other SC work. If we don't feel this is ready for prime time, then moving it to 2.2 is the best option IMO, or AAA while implementation details etc are worked out.

At this rate I dont think option C will fly (with the best will in the world).

Thanks

Josh
--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie

________________________________

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.

________________________________