RE: Plugins as SC - thread was: Visual Indicators

Hi Patrick,

Sure, normative parts counts. Always.

But with all due respect,

>> So let's not conflate failure examples with requirements.

This is EXACTLY what developers typically do. And these are your customers.
Ambiguities weaken acceptance. Sorry, but this is how I see it.

Regards
Stefan



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 10:42 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Plugins as SC - thread was: Visual Indicators

On 19/04/2020 09:34, Schnabel, Stefan wrote:
[...]
> I mean, this is a requirement that can be demanded for quite a few of all WCAG requirements, isn't it?
> So it is about "Don't do the following".
> 
> For instance, I understand well that https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F104 basically say: don't use fixed with/height since else text will be truncated.
> 
> But then why are the whole prerequisites for the text spacing requirement also not part of https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow?


Failure examples are not requirements. They are examples of "if you do 
this, it'll fail a particular SC (unless you've done something else to 
mitigate/work around this, or you're using it in a situation that counts 
as an exemption/exception to the SC)". And it's exactly because of the 
potential ambiguity that it's not possible to outright outlaw certain 
things. So let's not conflate failure examples with requirements.

What always counts, first and foremost, is the high-level ask in the SC 
itself. That's the normative part.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Sunday, 19 April 2020 08:48:14 UTC