- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:44:52 -0600
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzNA7CZG+LsKk8d2Der2Z0U4_J4q7nho47i7VeUP+MXFg@mail.gmail.com>
> If structure is conveyed through presentation, it needs to be also
programmatically determined ....
... OR AVAILABLE IN TEXT!
<body>
<h1>Two Columns</h1>
<div style="float:left; width:49%;">
<h2>Left Column</h2>
<p>Blah blah</p>
</div>
<div style="width:49%;">
<h2>Right Column</h2>
<p>Blah blah</p>
</div>
</body>
...meets the requirement David. Yet Understanding states "Content that has
a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria", so you would then be able
to fail that code sample I provided with your proposed Failure Technique.
Sorry, nope.
JF
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
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.
>
> 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 16:45:19 UTC