Hi Mary Jo,
After our “SC Analysis” call today, I realized you and I were working toward slightly different goals in the Analysis for SC language changes<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRGxHxV0mBEI_rvcc2EXS9xcBanQjG6k/edit?gid=1726579776#gid=1726579776> spreadsheet. Could you and the chairs please clarify?
Despite the spreadsheet’s name “SC language changes”, I see that some of our comments are not suggestions for changes to normative language. Example: “For the note WCAG2ICT added, need to add a link to definition…” would not involve the normative SC language.
I propose the following clarifications.
* Add a column “Suggest change to SC normative language?” with values like Proposed Change, Proposed No Change, and TF Consensus.
* If a comment contains a mixture of normative and non-normative language proposals, identify which is which.
Some non-normative language improvements may also be important in WCAG2ICT, but they should be best-effort on the way to completing this point of our Work Statement<https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/groups/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement/>:
> as needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies
Thanks,
Mitchell
Mitchell Evan (he/him)
Principal Accessibility Engineer
+49 (1525) 89 50 540
+1 (510) 375 6104
[Join us at CSUN 2025, March 10-14, Anaheim, CA. Freedom Scientific and TPGi logos with shark fin. Your Accessibility Partner, Breaking Barriers, Enabling Independence]
[TPGi]
www.tpgi.com<https://www.tpgi.com/>
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
