Re: WCAG 2.2 - tightened requirements approach

I agree with Wilco that modifying will be confusing and that is why I voted against it.  People may be testing against 2.2 but may not meet 2.2 and then want to know how they conform with 2.1 or 2.0.    We need to clearly show how they conform to each version.  2.0 is not obsolete and most people will want to see conformance measures to each version.

Jon

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:21 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi John,

> Deprecating a SC at one version that isn't deprecated at the prior version will I suspect also introduce confusion: is it deprecated or not?

That could be easily dealt with, the SC in the spec could say something like:

Success Criterion 2.4.7 Focus Visible
This SC is deprecated. From WCAG 2.2 the requirements are covered by 2.4.11 focus-indicator (link).


> If however it is 'superceded' by the newer SC, then you will still be hitting the old SC when you hit the newer (better) SC. I am not seeing an advantage to deprecation here.

I’m not clear what you mean by superseded, do you mean both are there and the new one eclipses (or builds on) the old one?

In which case the advantage of deprecation (or modification) is less confusion. We wouldn’t have advice in one being over-ridden by the other, and we could retire G165.

Apart from a technical point from Wilco, I haven’t heard any other downsides to modifying the current SC.

Taking into account that technical point, deprecation seems to be the next best option.

-Alastair