- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:17:52 -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: <CAAdDpDZdYr-vtBAGszTsKat+N0hzBEeuRU8t0=oOWfhSvaX2Eg@mail.gmail.com>
>> Which is why you cannot add a new Failure Technique to 1.3.1 mandating landmarks. I'm not too interested on going back over old decisions, but the failure didn't fail a page if it used text to describe the section... >> no retroactive changes to the existing WCAG 2.0 Absolutely agree... my opinion is there has never been a proposal to change WCAG 2.0 > Today, many of us advise our clients that iconography, while not covered by 2.0, icons are not covered in WCAG 2, information and relationships are. 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 12:09 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > > 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 17:18:17 UTC