Re: CFC - Publication of WCAG 2.2 FPWD

Wilco,
For the first item, this was the change that was agreed to by the working group for the SC and is in the editor’s draft as a result. Whether you agree with this change is independent of agreeing to send the draft document out for public comment. If the WG gets lots of comments back that switching the SC from AA to A is problematic then we will consider that, but the change is already agreed to in the draft.

For the latter item, when we published WCAG 2.1 we integrated the errata from WCAG 2.0 into the draft. The official language of each WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 SC is the version in the official recommendation, plus any errata, but errata create problems for people to understand the SC as some people don’t consider them. Many people have requested that errata be incorporated into later versions and that has been WG practice.

Hope this helps…

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

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


From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 12:44 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Publication of WCAG 2.2 FPWD
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 12:43 PM

-1

I have a few concerns with this draft:

- I noticed 2.4.7 was changed from Level AA to Level A. I apologies if I missed the conversation on this. It's a little hard participating in this group without attending the calls, but I try. I've brought this up in the past though, and I want to repeat my concern. I do not think WCAG should change existing success criteria in new versions. If AG agrees a change is necessary, I think an errata is the right way to do this. (Please let me know if you'd like me to explain this further.)

- The "success criterion" (and "guideline") text was removed from the headings. This creates a document that is no longer explicit about what things are success criteria. If we're removing this from the heading (which I'm not against), we'll need to add a definition of success criterion, or some normative section that says what is and what isn't a success criterion.

- In 1.4.13 the word "Dismissable" was changed to "Dismissible". Similar to my first comment, a change like that should in my opinion be done in an errata, not in a new working draft. Otherwise it creates different variations of the same success criterion between different versions of WCAG.


W

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:47 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Call For Consensus - ends Thursday 6th February at 11am Boston time.



This call is to approve the publication of WCAG 2.2 as the First Public Working Draft.



The current draft is available here:

https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/




The approach for WCAG 2.2 is to add only the items that have been agreed, and so far the Working Group has agreed to include Focus Visible (Enhanced) to the WCAG 2.2 working draft:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020JanMar/0000.html




Future decisions / CFCs would add more to the working draft, but this CFC is about permission to publish this first version.



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


--
Wilco Fiers
Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]