Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

>> The techniques are informative not normative. So at best they are a
recommendation from the WG on how to interpret a particular SC, they do not
make something mandatory, or prohibit its use in meeting the SC in question.

Yes, exactly... that is true for the techniques... the presence of a
techniques for landmarks does not make them mandatory.... that is not the
basis of my opinion

The normative SC says:
"Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef>
conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>
 can be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef>
or
are available in text. (Level A)"

If structure is conveyed through presentation, it needs to be also
programmatically determined ....

​This is the basis of my opinion
​


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, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

> The techniques are informative not normative. So at best they are a
> recommendation from the WG on how to interpret a particular SC, they do not
> make something mandatory, or prohibit its use in meeting the SC in question.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2018 15:11, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>>  >This Working Group has attempted to tackle this in the past, and the
>> W3C consensus position is that WCAG 2.0 does not mandate their use.
>>
>> My understanding is that the consensus was "not to take the action to add
>> a failure technique because of some members would not consent to adding it
>> ... that is not the same as saying we took an action to have "consensus to
>> not mandate their use",  ...  I don't provide my consensus to that proposal
>> which has never been proposed.
>>
>> Not having consensus on one thing does not mean we have consensus on
>> another.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com
>> <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     JF wrote:____
>>
>>     >we cannot retroactively say that they are *REQUIRED*, nor can we
>>     fail content that does not use either form of landmark
>>     determination. ____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     I agreed that In WCAG 2.0 we couldn’t add it, but why can’t we
>>     simple add a failure for that in 2.1?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     It would be similar in concept to F91:____
>>
>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F91
>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F91> ____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     (I.e. lacking markup that the content implies visually, the point of
>>     1.3.1.)____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Why would we need a new (very-overlapping) SC for that?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Create the new failure doc, link to up from 1.3.1 material… job
>>     done?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     -Alastair____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>
> --
> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk carpe diem
>