RE: CfC: Issue 157

Ø  My comment still stands.  I don’t think it is within the purview of the WG to do this — to normatively re-interpret something to be covered that the WG at the time said was not.

Gregg, can you point us to notes from the 2008 or prior timeframe showing what the group thought at that time?  The decision we were overturning was from a discussion in 2014 which was long after WCAG had been formally completed.

Jonathan

From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:31 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: CfC: Issue 157

Sorry

I was thinking 12:45 was at night.

My comment still stands.  I don’t think it is within the purview of the WG to do this — to normatively re-interpret something to be covered that the WG at the time said was not.

gregg

On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:

Gregg,
The deadline is passed, not sure where you are seeing otherwise.

We discussed this at length and did not feel that this interpretation to be out of line with what the WG believed at the time the SC were finalized.  Can you clarify specifically how you feel that this is incorrect?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 14:11
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CfC: Issue 157

Hi All,

it is still before the deadline - but I see this item was called.



l will post my concern anyway.


I am sorry to have to say - but I disagree with this answer / response.

It is my understanding — (and a general operating principle in standards)  that the Working group cannot change the interpretation of a standard after the issuing of the standard.   The understanding at the time the standard was passed,  and the understanding released publicly and on which the public interpreted and commented on the standard,  and the interpretation of the working group when it reached consensus on the provision must prevail.

From the discussion - it appears that it is the understanding that the Working Group meant it to mean one thing — and the new Working Group is deciding to change the meaning.    This would constitute a re-interpretation of the standard — in a normative way — after adoption.


The interpretation of the standard at the time it was passed must stand as long as the provision stands.

Changing the interpretation - when it was clearly stated - is equivalent to normatively changing the standard after the fact.


The working group should always strive to interpret the standard as they believe the working group understood the standard at the time consensus was reached by the working group.

This is independent of whether this is a good idea or not.

————————————————

Now separate from that - -one should keep in mind - that this interpretation also conflicts with the conformance criteria which allow things to take different forms and only need to meet the guidelines in one form.   For example a page can have one viewing option that is does not meet the success criteria as long as there is another viewing option that does.


Finally,  due to the math - you cannot have two colors that both meet the SC at 7 and are still appreciably different from each other in contrast with the page.



I think that for future work (revisions) both of these issues should be taken into account before deciding.  They were among the reasons the Working Group decided as it did last time.

However, with respect to WCAG 2.,  both of these latter are irrelevant if the group really believes that the WG meant it one way — and they are deciding to differ and are redefining the normative term (or its interpretation) after the fact.    That is not really really appropriate to do without issuing a new standard because it is in effect making a normative change to a standing standard.



If I misunderstood something — let me know.   (or if you disagree - I am happy to discuss whether I am right.) but I THINK that this is outside of the WG purview for the reasons above.

respectfully

gregg

On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:

CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday April 14 at 12:45pm Boston time.

GitHub issue 157 related to the need for the focus and hover states to meet WCAG contrast requirements was discussed on the April 12 WCAG teleconference and surveyed to the group (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results#xi157).

Proposed response:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/157#issuecomment-208996348


If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk