RE: WCAG 2.2 status update

Hi Alastair –

You may have missed it but I sent an email on Jan 16th with examples.  This has the non-standard interaction examples:<>


VP Enterprise Accessibility & General Manager

T (978) 443-0798  C (978) 760-0682
The Paciello Group & Interactive Accessibility
17757 US Highway 19 N, Suite 560, Clearwater, FL 33764<><>

A Vispero™ Company

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Alastair Campbell <>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:53 AM
To: WCAG list <>
Cc: COGA TF <>;
Subject: WCAG 2.2 status update

Hi everyone,

A quick general update on the status of the various WCAG 2.2 SCs, I’ve tried to order on how much work appears to be left to do.

For anyone shepherding an SC, please do look at the agendas<> page and let me know if you won’t be around when your one(s) are up. Also, if I have missed some conversation / updates and it has moved on more than I know, please reply to me.

SCs for review / approval:

  *   Hidden controls: Updated after the review on 21st Jan:

Need to assess if the changes work for everyone:

  *   Touch target spacing: Updated by Kathy & Mobile task force to enforce a minimum size+spacing. Reviewed on 21st Jan:

There were no objections to the SC text and approach, so need a firmer understanding doc & technique.
  *   Information in steps: Agreed to proceed with the SC text on the 28th:

Need a technique, then we can create PR to integrate.
  *   Fixed Reference Points: Reviewed Jan 28th:

It seemed that making it more specific to page numbers from a paper publication would be more appropriate, if that is updated quickly it could be re-reviewed.
  *   Dragging: Was reviewed Jan 7th, and since then some examples have been found & put forward, so it does appear to be feasible. There are still comments from the review that need updating in the doc.

  *   Find help: Reviewed Feb 4th:

Difficult because we cannot target by size or type of site, so “actively supported” is a tricky concept. Need someone to help or come up with a way around that.
  *   Confirmation before submission: Reviewed Dec 10th:

I think it needs some updates before another review (SteveL). Previous results:

SCs that (probably) need more work than fits into the timescale:

  *   Visual indicators: Last reviewed Jan 7th:

In the reviewed form, it requires a lot of (documented) practical research into how different components would pass/fail.
There has been a side conversation, but it still needs quite a lot of research/work.

  *   Custom interactions, reviewed Dec 17th:

Some big questions left open about whether the interaction is the problem, or the expectation of the interaction.
Would really like people to collect examples of a non-standard interactions (anyone, not just Jake!). This doesn’t appear to have happened yet.

SCs that hit problems, not scheduling for re-review:

  *   Icon Description: Was reviewed on the 7th Jan:

There does not seem to be a good way of achieving this on touch-screen devices, in a way that doesn’t make the interaction worse in some circumstances.
  *   Visible labels & Orientation: were thought to be possible to cover with understanding/technique updates.

SCs approved:

  *   Accessible authentication: Approved on a call, need a review of the PR and CFC:

  *   Focus visible (enhanced): CFC approved, will be included in the working draft soon. Post-approval comments in github.
Kind regards,

--<> / @alastc

Received on Monday, 10 February 2020 14:45:16 UTC