Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 requirements document

Of course, we don’t NEED to make such a change, this just allows us to if the WG deems it the best way. As we can see from the Focus Visible discussion, we are discussing this but not forcing any particular approach.

We should also point out that this was the language of the requirements for WCAG 2.1, so it wasn’t abused then and won’t be for 2.2 either. https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/requirements/


Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

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


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:51 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - WCAG 2.2 requirements document
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM

+0.  I agree with Katie, that this aspect of changing the criteria for newer versions is likely to be confusing and adding additional criteria while not optimal will show a succession of building on top of the existing requirements and allow for more clear reporting against different versions at the same time.

Jonathan

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 requirements document

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.

-1 = as stated on calls, I think NEW requirements should have a NEW identifier, modifying a currently numbered SC will cause confusion. I do not agree with this specific statement in the Reqs document:

" WCAG 2.x specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing success criteria as well as offer additional guidelines and success criteria but WCAG 2.x requirements may not weaken what is required generally of web content to be considered conformant to either.  "

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect,
Vice President of Accessibility at EverFi,
Board Member and W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility

WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

Cell: 703-371-5545<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.




On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:10 PM Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Alastair,

+1

Kind regards,
Laura

On 7/17/19, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Friday 19th July at 12pm (midday) Boston time.
>
>
>
> This CFC is for approval of the WCAG 2.2 requirements document.
>
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/master/requirements/22/index.html

>
>
>
> The Working Group has discussed the document several times, most recently
> using a survey:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22requirements-2/results

>
> And during a teleconference:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2019/06/18-ag-minutes.html#item06

>
>
>
> 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 decision, please let the group know before the CfC
> deadline.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com><http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
>
>


--
Laura L. Carlson