W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2020

RE: WCAG 2.2 status update

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:05:14 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
CC: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
Message-ID: <MN2PR22MB1776866DB1ED2038C1FB7AFCE33F0@MN2PR22MB1776.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
> I for one am extremely nervous about making *any* normative changes that would have a backward impact on WCAG 2.0.

Right, and you are not the only one with this concern of course!  This would be a long discussion, and I think we may have run out the clock on the opportunity to have such a discussion.

> Bruce, can you provide an example?

The most black-and-white example I think is that our formula for relative luminance used an out-of-date reference and, consequently, an incorrect numerical constant in the threshold value.

In three places, 0.03928 should be 0.04045.  The good news is that, owing to rounding, there is no difference for any two 32 bit colors.  I feel rather strongly that we should make the correction.  Further, I have not heard any *good* (IMHO) rationalizations for not making the correction.  But to be clear, I can live with not making this correction.
See:  http://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/360

It is serious flaw that the phrasing used in 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 is not consistent with structurally similar SC 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, and 1.2.8.
Compare www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#captions-prerecorded versus www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#audio-description-prerecorded
Because 1.2.5 is AA, the issue does comes up a good bit in actual practice.  Alastair even got caught by the divergent wording, so that is pretty good evidence that there is problem!
See:  http://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/796

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2020 18:05:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:34 UTC