Re: CFC - Add Accessible Authentication to WCAG 2.2 draft

+1, assuming the following editorial edits are made.

  *   In the definition there is a comma missing. We have tried to use the serial comma consistently and “memorization, such as remembering a username, password, set of characters, images or patterns;” is missing it before the ‘or’.
  *   In technique procedure:
     *   “for websites with page to login:”  - needs to be modified. Do the sites need a page or just a login mechanism? Suggest removing this sentence anyway.
     *   “Select a login feature includes a method of emailing a link to the user.” Grammar. Also, shouldn’t this also be the sentence before the numbered list? “For websites which allow users to login by emailing a login link to the email address associated with the account:”
     *   Seems like checks 3-5 all need to be true
  *   Understanding:
     *   The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure there is an accessible, easy-to-use, @@and@@ secure method to log in and access content.
     *   WCAG uses “web site”, not “website” (7 instances)
     *   “When a cognitive function test is used, that at least one other authentication method must available which uses does not use a cognitive function test.” – remove “that” and add “be”
     *   Benefits/Techniques/Examples of Focus Visible
        *   Accessible Authentication, not Focus Visible
     *   “People with cognitive issues to do with memory, reading (e.g. dyslexia), numbers (e.g. dyscalculia), or perception-processing limitations” – how about “relating” instead of “to do”?


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility

From: Alastair Campbell <>
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 6:00 AM
To: WCAG <>
Subject: CFC - Add Accessible Authentication to WCAG 2.2 draft
Resent-From: WCAG <>
Resent-Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 6:00 AM

Call For Consensus — ends Monday March 23rd  at 9am Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed the new Success Criteria for WCAG 2.2: Accessible Authentication.

The Pull Request in github shows the changes, and includes links to preview the additional SC, the understanding document, and the technique:

This was discussed via a survey:

And the last call was:

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,


--<> / @alastc

Received on Sunday, 22 March 2020 22:33:08 UTC