RE: WCAG 2.2 requirements document

Hi Katie,

From the emails, we had:
+1 * 4
0 * 1
-1 * 1

The reason the CFC response was delayed is that we had a key example come up during the CFC time period which we discussed heavily in the last couple of meetings [1]. The concept is a little nebulous if you don’t have concrete examples to go through and I thought it worthwhile to use it as a case study.

From the survey & discussion everyone agreed with updating an SC in a particular circumstance. (There are a couple of comments about not wanting to update that particular Reflow SC, but in the discussion those commenters were happy with updates in general.)
Your objection is noted, however, it is clear that we have substantial support for the WCAG 2.2 requirements to include the ability to update current SCs.

As Andrew mentioned that requirement was the same for 2.1. We will take each instance on a case-by-case basis so it may not happen anyway, but it is possible.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] https://www.w3.org/2019/07/30-ag-minutes.html#item02



From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Sent: 31 July 2019 00:35
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 requirements document

My thoughts: 3 to 2 does not really constitute "substantial support". Could you please explain that?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 10:28 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:

AG Working Group members,



As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to this CfC and one objection (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JulSep/0070.html), this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.



This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions.


Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Alastair Campbell


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/> / @alastc