Re: WCAG 2.2 status update

Hey Alastair,
Some of my previous comments have not been addressed, such as for the EPUB
SC about not limiting the SC to an arbitrary list of publication types.
Others are for new content, such as the new definition of "step",
which uses the word "mechanism". Mechanisms, as it is defined in WCAG 2.1
includes solutions built into assistive technologies and user agents. I do
not think that is the right word to use here.

I think a good practice here would be not to consider an SC approved until
it has gone through a survey without major concerns. I realise the
surveying method is time consuming, but I don't think that just because it
has gone through a few iterations already it means its ready. We should be
thoughtful, make sure we get this right.


W

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:55 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
>
> Are these concerns things that were not included in the previous survey
> answers? I.e. new things, based on the changes made to deal with the
> previous survey comments.
>
>
>
> Having been through multiple rounds and approved them (based on the
> comments in the surveys), I’m reluctant to go through *another* round
> en-masse.
>
>
>
> We will work on refining the associated documents (understanding &
> techniques), which we could survey is there is anything controversial.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Sent:* 30 March 2020 10:41
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: WCAG 2.2 status update
>
>
>
> Hey Alastair,
>
> I have a few outstanding concerns with the approved SCs. I think another
> survey round would be appropriate, since they have all been updated since
> they were last surveyed.
>
>
>
> Wilco
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> This is hopefully the final status update for the WCAG 2.2 as pre-approved
> drafts, after this we’ll be dealing with CFCs and github comments.
>
>
>
> We have two which appear to be pretty much ready but we need approval, up
> on Tuesday:
>
>
>
>    - *Touch target spacing: *We updated that in the meeting on Wednesday,
>    but the Mobile TF suggested some updates:
>
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sszSUKB8t3VuRzxHtOjLfQZjNYCw-xr_EbuMwW7WiGc/edit#heading=h.7sa7n7yr2ykk
>    - *Visual Indicators (to progress):* Has been updated, re-review
>    needed:
>
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#heading=h.y476ttrsa0b5>
>
>
>
> We have a few which are approved from an SC point of view, pending updates
> to the understanding/technique documents:
>
>
>
>    - *Hidden controls:* Approved (in meeting) SC:
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-ag-minutes.html#item02
>    New technique to approve.
>    - *Find help*: Approved (in meeting) the SC:
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-ag-minutes.html#item05
>    Needs a fleshed out technique.
>    - *Fixed Reference Points: *Approved (in meeting) the SC:
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/03/25-ag-minutes.html#item04
>    Has an updated technique.
>    - *Error correction (Processes):* Approved (in meeting) the SC:
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/03/25-ag-minutes.html#item03
>    Needs a fleshed out technique.
>
> Please do review the above and comment in the documents if you have
> editorial suggestions.
>
> We are creating pull requests prior to CFC for:
>
>    -
> *Information in steps *Note – we approved a definition for “steps” that
>    will be applied to this SC as well.
>    - *Dragging*
>
> *SCs that hit problems:*
>
>    - *Icon Description*: Was reviewed on the 7th Jan:
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/01/07-ag-minutes.html#item06
>    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.
>    - *Custom interactions: *It is really difficult to define what a
>    ‘custom interaction’ actually is. A lot of the problematic ones are
>    ‘standard interactions’ (e.g. swipe gesture) but with an unexpected result.
>    This is deferred, more research needed.
>    https://www.w3.org/2020/03/24-ag-minutes.html#item01
>
> *SCs approved:*
>
>    - *Accessible authentication:* CFCed and ready to merge:
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1037
>    - *Focus visible (enhanced):* Part of FPWD.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>
>

-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R