W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Errata on WCAG 2.0 1.3.3 and 1.4.1

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:16:42 +0000
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9B956F86-7C0F-4A23-80BC-3584D2D2A466@adobe.com>
I agree that color is still included whether color is in the list or not, just as “scent” would be since both are sensory characteristics. Given that some people have been confused by it there is no issue in regarding this as an editorial change that doesn’t affect the normative meaning.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk







On 5/17/17, 14:01, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:

>Hi Andrew,
>
>My point is that adding color is not an omission or an error that
>needs to be addressed by an errata to WCAG 2.0. The words 'such as'
>covers it.
>Else:
>remove the words 'such as' and list all attributes such as shape,
>location, color etc. exhaustively within the SC.
>That note really does not add or detract from the SC ... it is simply
>confuses one. Removing it will  get rid of a distraction. That can be
>addressed by an errata.
>
>The Understanding doc for WCAG 2.0 can clarify that SC 1.3.3 also
>includes color (and any other attributes not presently listed). That
>will be in keeping with the framework of the Understanding doc ...
>explain / clarify and not add / detract to the SC.
>Thanks and best wishes,
>Sailesh
>
>
>.
>
>On 5/17/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>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
>>>1.3.3.
>>
>> Actually, the first step is to add this to the editorial errata list for
>> WCAG 2.0, which will make one conclude with certainty that WCAG 2.0 does
>> include color in 1.3.3. Does that make sense? Then, since the change is
>> editorial we will make the textual change in WCAG 2.1 to avoid people
>> needing to check the errata (which people generally don’t do).
>>
>> AWK
>>
>>>
>>>On 5/17/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:21 PM
>>>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>>> 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,
>>>> AWK
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>> Adobe
>>>>
>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbeb8842f38e54913f5c208d49d42e0c2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636306357942620613&sdata=lPEDk2IfS6%2FWLh562VcIEnEh7EXj7EgP7eQ1zMj1Iuw%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 18:17:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC