RE: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

Except that the thing about WCAG 2.0 Techniques, as they are non-normative and ‘meant specifically’ to be updated, added and included as technologies change……….that’s how we got ARIA and HTML5 Techniques.

 

I am in favor of marking Techniques as identified as:

 

*       “….applicable to WCAG 2.0” 

*       “….applicable to WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1”

*       “….applicable to WCAG 2.1”

*       “….applicable to WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2 and AG 1.0”

 

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:27 AM
To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

 

The issue is this: adding a new Failure Technique to an existing SC that now is requiring something that was not required in the 2.0 Rec is effectively re-writing the Success Criteria. 

 

And while yes, Techniques (both Failure and Success) are non-normative, we have a small but significant issue: the non-normative Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20161007/understanding-techniques.html>  specifically states:

 

Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided without the failure.

 

Since Techniques are non-normative, and are all collected in one location, we do not have "2.0 Techniques" and separate but different "2.1 Techniques", we simply have "Techniques", all in one big bucket. If the WG wants to change that, then the next required step would be to create that distinction (but then... does that further make Techniques 'normative'?)

 

So retroactively adding a new Failure Technique that extends an existing SC to require 'more' to the collection of existing techniques for SC 1.3.1, effectively means that any and all documents that claim WCAG 2.0 conformance today that do not use landmark notation will suddenly become non-conformant with the publishing of that non-normative yet strangely "quasi-normative" Technique, due to the advisory text I have quoted. (And, in fact, it is my personal belief that is exactly what David ultimately wants, as he has previously publicly stated that one of his clients will not add landmark regions unless it is specifically required by WCAG 2.0 normatively or via a Failure Technique.)

 

It is for this reason that WG members such as myself, James Nurthen/Oracle, and Alex Li/Microsoft strongly opposed further pursuit of this initiative. If we all feel that the presence of landmark elements or roles is important enough to be required, then make it an actual requirement; don't try and "back-door" it into the current Spec via a Technique on the most ambiguous of all of our 2.0 Success Criteria (1.3.1).

 

JF

 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk <mailto: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 <tel:613.235.4902> 

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>  <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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>  <mailto: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 <http://tink.uk>  carpe diem





 

-- 

John Foliot

Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

 <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> john.foliot@deque.com

 

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion