Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics

Andrew, Josh?

As it looks like the F2F is gonna happen, can we put this on the list of
potential discussion topics over the two days? I think we all would like to
resolve this conundrum.

JF

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:11 PM, GMAIL: Katie Haritos-Shea <
ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> As David suggested this a long time ago, way before any of us thought
> about this……I absolutely would.
>
> But I will leave it up to the AG chairs to set our CSUN agenda.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 2:01 PM
> *To:* GMAIL: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; David
> MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Alastair Campbell <
> acampbell@nomensa.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: a suggestion for Personalization Semantics
>
>
>
> > 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”
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Katie, I think that might be one potential solution. I like it on
> the surface, but would want to think it through a bit more, but it's
> pointed in the right direction (IMHO), as it at least recognizes the
> "problem" that needs solving (versioning).
>
>
>
> Katie, would you support floating that as a potential discussion topic for
> the (looks like it's gonna happen) CSUN F2F in March? (I'd second it...)
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:57 AM, GMAIL: Katie Haritos-Shea <
> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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> 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
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion