- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:09:24 -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: <CAKdCpxy9rqoig8hvYt3mrN1T9iGPj2SJmFB0YU0ho=4z7ZTN9w@mail.gmail.com>
> I agree, it would not be a failure... Which is why you cannot add a new Failure Technique to 1.3.1 mandating landmarks. I feel your pain brother, but do it the right way - introduce a new SC that disambiguates 1.3.1 w.r.t. region navigation, then bring on your Technique(s). The Charter for WCAG 2.1 was very clear - no retroactive changes to the existing WCAG 2.0 - and like it or not, we have existing text that states that meeting a Failure Technique means you are non-compliant - square that circle and we're good to go. > AC: Then *we need a mechanism to separate techniques and failures that apply from 2.1 onwards*. *I would be fully supportive of something like that*, as long as we all recognize that it also makes Techniques quasi-normative in the process... I would not oppose that either, but any move that retroactively changes the requirements for 2.0 compliance I will oppose strongly (and I've not changed that position since this first came up in discussion) . > AC: it would fail our SC requirements to not over-lap with other SC. However, it's not 'overlapping' - it's extending, in a fashion similar to SC 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast. Today, many of us advise our clients that iconography, while not covered by 2.0, SHOULD also meet a minimum color contrast as well, as those icons are "calls to action" and need to be Perceivable. It is my opinion that we have a similar situation here with Landmarks, and the precedent for introducing a new SC to cover known or perceived gaps in existing SC has already been established. JF On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:47 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I agree, it would not be a failure... > > 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 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 >> > > -- 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 17:09:48 UTC