Re: New requirement for conforming alternate versions

I support the addition for WCAG 2.1

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 Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> Currently, The requirements for a conforming alternate version are laid
> out in the glossary definition.  However, there are two big things missing
> from these requirements in my opinion:
>
> 1.       There’s no requirement to actually label a link to a conforming
> alternate as such, and thus how would the user know?
>
> 2.       There’s no requirement to tell the user what is altered so they
> can judge whether they need such a version.
>
>
>
> I filed this a few weeks ago on GitHub and hoping to get some more quick
> feedback: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/306
>
>
>
> And here’s the new definition being proposed:
> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/label-conforming-alternates/
> guidelines/terms/20/conforming-alternate-version.html
>
>
>
> *Steve Repsher*
>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/steverep> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/steverepsherjr/> | GitHub
> <https://github.com/steverep>
>
>
>