Re: Errata on WCAG 2.0 1.3.3 and 1.4.1

+1

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> 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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636306357942620613&sdata=lPEDk2IfS6%
> 2FWLh562VcIEnEh7EXj7EgP7eQ1zMj1Iuw%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>
>