JF wrote: > If structure is conveyed through presentation, it needs to be also programmatically determined > .... OR AVAILABLE IN TEXT! So the failure could be for lack of landmarks and text. Your example without the headings would count, I come across that regularly. A bit like F16 combines “scrolling content where movement is not essential to the activity without also including a mechanism to pause and restart the content”. I’m not going to lose sleep over the landmarks aspect, but being able to add new techniques/failures for current SC based on new technology is a key principle. >> AC: Then we need a mechanism to separate techniques and failures that apply from 2.1 onwards. JF: > 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) Fair enough, agreed. I don’t think the 2.1 / 2.2 process can work effectively without that. > > AC: it would fail our SC requirements to not over-lap with other SC. JF: > However, it's not 'overlapping' - it's extending, in a fashion similar to SC 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast. No really, there are already quite a few structure/landmark oriented techniques for 1.3.1 (e.g. ARIA11 on landmarks, ARIA13, ARIA20, H97). The old contrast SC applies to text, the new SC applies to graphics. That is not an overlap, it is more like 1.3.1 compared to 4.1.2. So the new contrast SC applies to different content, but 1.3.1 in principle and current interpretation applies to landmarks. -Alastair
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 17:27:59 UTC