- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:47:45 -0500
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZ+BLRBC+pC7HWLc9nbztvjzyRAPfXuEyBEyjFN9FeeNA@mail.gmail.com>
I agree, it would not be a failure... 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 11:44 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > > 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 16:48:10 UTC