Re: review of general issues for wcag 3.

Hi folks

WCAG review call  today would like to submit  the following issues to AG:

   -

   Issue G1: Please adjust 3.1.1 - the definitions of core and
   supplemental, so WCAG is more equitable.
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.893gyvzag5qf>
   -

   Issue G2: Assertions should be core or supplemental.
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.97qbn8g09194>
   -

   Issue G3: Assertions are too long and hard to follow. Please replace
   the  text of how to write an assertion, with a link.
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.luspgrq7hf>


If you do not comment we will assume that you are happy with this. If you
would like changes or do not agree with the issue please let us know by end
of day on Monday (20th April)

Thanks and all the best
Lisa




On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 7:02 PM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Folks
> On Thursday's WCAG review call we are going to review some general issues
> for wcag 3.
> You can review the proposed issue text at  General issues tab
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5> in
> the review document if you want to add  comments before the meeting.
>
>
> The issues are
>
>
>    - The definitions of core or supplement. Is it equitable?
>    - Assertions seem less important. Suggestion to improve this.
>    - Suggestion to make assertions easier to read.
>
>
>
>
> --
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>