RE: 2.4.7 Focus Visible

Adam,
I’m not in Oz,  but your statement seems incorrect...

  *   WCAG 2.0 has now been endorsed for use by governments in Australia:

  *   At the end of 2009, the Australian Government’s Secretaries’ ICT Governance Board (SIGB) endorsed the Australian Government’s transition to WCAG 2.0. The endorsement requires all Australian Government websites to implement WCAG 2.0 to level AA over a four-year period. The SIGB’s authority applies to agencies managed under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act).

  *   The COAG OCC have endorsed WCAG 2.0, requiring all federal, state and territory websites to conform to WCAG 2.0 at Level A by the end of 2012.
In June 2010, the Australian Government released its Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy (NTS), which sets out a strategy and workplan for transitioning to WCAG 2.0 Level AA over a four-year period. The Strategy is available at http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/wcag-2-implementation/index.html.


Also, please see https://www.boia.org/blog/australia-digital-accessibility-laws-an-overview


Mike

From: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:28 PM
To: 'Michael Livesey' <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: 'Patrick H. Lauke' <redux@splintered.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2.4.7 Focus Visible
It’s worth noting that there is no such connection between WCAG and any state or federal legislation in Australia so “most jurisdictions “may be stating what is the case in the U. S. and perhaps the EU only … From: Michael Livesey <mike. j. livesey@ gmail. com>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
    Report Suspicious  <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!2k-hwr41KrmwOw_7eKBHDjJZ_8LYEiy8j5XR5KejYOub8lLq7jUrH05TqRHSeved7kL3JqQYlq_EZmdWpiak8qLHirTm_JB9$>   ‌
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
It’s worth noting that there is no such connection between WCAG and any state or federal legislation in Australia so “most jurisdictions “may be stating what is the case in the U.S.  and perhaps the EU only …

From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 6:52 AM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible

The difference between A and AA has a legal difference in that AA is the legal minimum as set out by equalities legislation in most jurisdictions for most public sector (charity, educational, government) sites.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 9:28 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
I don’t really want to get involved in this back and forth, but am  pointing out that the A/AA distinction is for all intents and purposes meaningless.  This is because all standards drawing on WCAG seem to include both A and AA (with a couple cherry picking exclusions for a couple of thorny specific SCs).

You’ll hear some conceptual arguments that failing an A is worse than a AA, but I’ve never seen evidence of that enter into procurement decisions.

We had moved Focus Visible from AA to A in the first drafts of 2.2 to make space for a new Focus Appearance at AA, but when that hit the shoals during testing and went to AAA, the WG pushed Focus Visible back to AA again, because we didn’t have a new AA and whether it was A or AA was deemed immaterial by many (so why force checkers to have to move it?).

I concur with Juliette’s last sentiment that this discussion has probably run its course. WG members can look at the arguments in the thread to inform their votes on changes to the Understanding document.

Mike

From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:00 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible
Just a additional correction to your post so that other readers are not mislead >> WCAG sets a baseline lowest limit of what sites must do in order to comply. WCAG 2. 4. 7 is AA rated. It is not the baseline lowest limit at all. It is a
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
    Report Suspicious  <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!12-vrJEwpjW0FW67lIkq4SZfFDuvzROyOjxfYJVRh-K16PDJu_8Pz_AiKAs8ogkdB3OSEOCXcal0sHsby9EAjSpFcNZwhk3c8hmhGNGb9IGUFniWPNkOwumKTYA6MDQ$>   ‌
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Just a additional correction to your post so that other readers are not mislead

>> WCAG sets a baseline lowest limit of what sites must do in order to comply.

WCAG 2.4.7 is AA rated. It is not the baseline lowest limit at all. It is a mid-level target, AA is regarded as a prestigious level. I wouldn't have an issue if keyboard only focus was rated "A" and there was an additional criteria at AA and AAA that required more extensive compliance. But we are talking about obliterating focus-visible and still maintaining AA accreditation here.



--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk/> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke<https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke> | skype: patrick_h_lauke