Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible

Michael writes:

>  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.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the legal requirements here:
pretty much every legislation that references WCAG demands both A and AA
conformance. Meeting ALL of the AA Success Criteria and not meeting a A
level SC still means you are non-compliant to the legislated requirements:
when entities write "AA conformance" they are actually (shorthand) stating
both A and AA conformance.

>  It is a mid-level target, AA is regarded as a prestigious level.

Say what now? A "prestigious" level? What is that, and who has made that
determination?

I think now you sir are arguing to make an argument, and plugging-in
presumptions and assertions that have no factual basis. There are no
"targets" in WCAG 2.x, there are Success Criteria (SC), and a Conformance
Model <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance> that states you must
successfully meet all of the Success Criteria at one of three levels: you
must meet *all of the A SC* to be WCAG A conformant, you must meet *all of
the A and AA SC to be WCAG AA conformant,* and you must meet *all of the A,
AA, and AAA Success Criteria to be WCAG AAA conformant*. Suggesting
anything different is incorrect.

>  I named checked you [Patrick] because you have been pretty much the
voice constantly attacking this proposal.

As I read this thread, it strikes me that you've tried to force your
opinion/thoughts here via a number of different approaches, and each
approach has been flawed - which Patrick has noted. I'm sorry you are
offended that his counter-points to your attempts continue to fail, but
it's not Patrick's fault - he's telling it as it is.

 As my long-time colleague and friend has noted, if you want to propose a
new Advisory Technique, feel free to do so. I would, however, caution you
in advance that it will likely NOT be taken up any time soon - I suspect
most of the group will consider this a low-priority suggestion. The WCAG
Working Group is anxiously working to release WCAG 2.2 A.S.A.P. (it's late
to delivery already), and then turn their hands to getting back to (down
to?) WCAG 3 (where I will suggest debating the nuanced interpretation of a
WCAG 2.x SC is counter-productive). So their sense of urgency in reviewing
and debating a newly proposed Advisory Technique is likely quite low.

JF

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 4:52 PM Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:00 PM
>> *To: *Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
>> *Cc: *w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <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://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
>> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>
>>

-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"