Re: Errata on WCAG 2.0 1.3.3 and 1.4.1

The SC currently  does use the words, 'such as', so an instruction
that refers to an element by its color is covered even today, albeit
not as explicitly as the other listed attributes.
The note perhaps should be omitted because Guideline 1.4 (SC 1.4.1)
does not deal with instructions which is the subject matter of 1.3.3.
That note may confuse some.
Adding 'color' to the SC now will make one conclude with certainty
that WCAG 2.0 does not include  or mean to include 'color' for SC
Because, only conformance with  proposed WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.3 will require that.
So IMO, dropping the note may be an errata issue, not adding ''color'
to the text of the SC.
Best regards,
Sailesh Panchang

On 5/17/17, Repsher, Stephen J <> wrote:
> +1
> Steve
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick []
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:21 PM
> To: WCAG <>
> Subject: Errata on WCAG 2.0 1.3.3 and 1.4.1
> Gregg suggested (correctly, I believe) that the original intent of 1.3.3 and
> 1.4.1 is being misunderstood due to the language of the notes.
> The suggestion is to remove the notes for both SC and the explicitly add
> “color” to the list of sensory characteristics in 1.3.3:
> 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics: Instructions provided for understanding and
> operating content do not rely solely on sensory characteristics of
> components such as shape, size, @@color,@@ visual location, orientation, or
> sound.
> Color is clearly a sensory characteristic, so we could also just handle the
> addition of “color” in the understanding document but I think that given
> that color is explicitly discussed in 1.4.1 it may decrease possible
> misunderstandings.
> Step one is to add this to the errata document. Step two would be to
> implement the change in the WCAG 2.1 release.
> What do people think?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 16:37:05 UTC