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

RE: Focus visisble (enhanced) history

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:51:15 +0000
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
CC: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM7PR09MB41674B4B401535865C95BC94B9030@AM7PR09MB4167.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Wilco,

> that CfC you're referring to doesn't mention changing the conformance level of 1.4.7.

The description of the PR (linked from the CFC) said: “It is unusual for us to move a WCAG 2.0 SC from AA to A, but this was the preferred option from this survey<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/updating-wcag2-requirements/results> and meeting<https://www.w3.org/2019/07/16-ag-minutes.html#item02>.”

That is also underplaying it, we had a lot of discussion about that aspect last year. Adjusting the level wasn’t the initial proposal (which was simply to update the SC), and the text highlighting the approach was at the very top of the draft since the 1st August last year:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9_WBgfhViWAaRFIWWt10CP5rBsEVIWm3vT1vWqrHvI/edit?ts=5d124fb5#heading=h.s1rdduthbnva (I think the version history is available to all?)

As Andrew said, the group made that decision a while ago. We can change it prior to publication but we’ll go through the standard process to do so (i.e. github issue, ideally tagged with WCAG 2.2 please!).

> How come WCAG 2.1 hasn't been updated if there is an errata? I opened a similar issue for 2.0 a few months back too (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/920).

As mentioned in the github issue, I personally agree, but it’s been the policy so far. It isn’t a new thing for the FPWD to include errata on the previous version, so wouldn’t block publication. If we do change the policy I’d suggest applying it from 2.1 onwards.


Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 23:51:23 UTC

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