RE: CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry

+1

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:08 PM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [External] RE: CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry

+1 - given the definition of process which strengthens the non-normative statement.

Jonathan

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Jon,

From the minutes: https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-ag-minutes#t06

I think we removed it because it caused confusion about going over multiple domains (which is in scope), whereas multiple sessions is not in scope due to the definition of processes.

Also remember the understanding doc has:
"This Success Criterion does not add a requirement to remember information between sessions. A <a>process</a> is defined on the basis of an activity and is not applicable when a user returns after closing a session or navigating away."

Kind regards,

-Alastair

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>>
Date: Monday, 6 June 2022 at 18:17
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry
Without the same session limitation, I'm not sure if the security exception is broad enough to cover situations where saving the data is problematic for privacy reasons.  In some ways we are encouraging people to store a lot of information about users across sessions that they may not be aware of that is being saved.

Jonathan

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Michael,

> I believe a prior version had a note (or even normative wording) explaining that the process is constrained to the current user session.

That was removed last august: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/45f7815e0cb484540e6d362244c35acea89e7bd3<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1l_R3M01WA1NsK-jTRxOrP1sxAPaqHEsdUGNK2Wwv2uMRmDglhtP0cLsj0GGiGLNqKEb3Ei4fHWHPF4fvbiqr-e2aoCQ8qoJo3Apx85wL3OqxknGQDgU8ejZdYan1OnouY5RmtwmrPnykrWo8hGBCwQ70V6ilPsSarnAVXoc6ph9CuIb3YXGLVQXJk8xyUYt4rbR49_S99BVnXgxChiPDC1Qhc7OHrGqy8ADm9hTVdIfc9sHu-HTA-LQRfreJOhrnS4mHF0l2XTg9HIiNdyY0CpPFy15ofdHmA44JgQjmHixmSb-xPX7i-fN31pwHRErYfwchB1FkAty8rAuYAm8QNtBnsKfyg9d2I-O7MG8_cyJJa_PEP89XBKzvTvYBIsPp1QO5nNSm066ZLDJziUGVjfIknElzN_IpDJHhy4CXPFigxKECFAaMazdZqrqS6Jz-IKrnUNphOr95N2Zrv85DMDfBcpLXiLFwmfP8HjNN7NWL6gxunGSOzsb7Nb94CzKO/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Fw3c%252Fwcag%252Fcommit%252F45f7815e0cb484540e6d362244c35acea89e7bd3%26data%3D05%257C01%257Cacampbell%2540nomensa.com%257Cd957fcba12bb49aa704808da47e061d9%257Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%257C0%257C0%257C637901326287787341%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3DJT9kVFBe1wd6tud48mak5DoEZTBTZ2RpwE%252Bo4tWpCSs%253D%26reserved%3D0>


> I also thought the search results example had been critiqued and decided to be removed?

We can check that, but the CFC is for the normative text. Understanding doc updates can be done separately.


> Finally, shouldn't the 2 editor's notes  beginning "Are there..." be removed before CFC?

All the "editor's notes" will be removed prior to CR, but shouldn't impact this CFC.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 8:20 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CFC - WCAG 2.2 Redundant entry
Call For Consensus - ends Friday June 10th at midday Boston time. The Working Group has previously discussed the WCAG 2.2 SC Redundant Entry and it needs to be approved by CFC. It can be previewed in the editor's draft:
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Call For Consensus - ends Friday June 10th at midday Boston time.

The Working Group has previously discussed the WCAG 2.2 SC Redundant Entry and it needs to be approved by CFC.

It can be previewed in the editor's draft:
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/redundant-entry.html<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1HlkCd5CXXP9r7N-b9jMOvXu_xbhNP0GhpIJCg-mm5oBPAKu9SZqA0rqSX39ecu7LzbYC2wssqTerJYpJRjBN-Wt0qXXhvfj2YZvcPXqzz_y4JUH9Lo9iglg-iZZSbQUuiISoUyac5NlEh_NvrsPSmq3L776E7IuKOkTl5K4AE2Yk-7Ttwt1ja6RUlrM87c_3fpLOyuvjYykHfLDO7e2fx8R00xWPyixHzsMgKin6ukET9WjLXAeun6pxocdmVi2NfuDqSCrFY3KbH_6ve20DkOZqgvJIg6dIPch9bk1Bf3C6E4zRImbkI0v-VPiEG6xCGuMaFifE5Ky87XD402MEOohpqf0qMd09WnHpixV4JgGpAL95iUg7bF8q73Ayo7QWpSyiyUwcYcya2SEMzVGo1_ETC_0PM6Elejs6nNXg293Ag0nFuV1u1hr8tq_LvzAUEHusnCwrAPhbSlA_7SsxmIg3u8rzthsZI9rYou0Tx4E-EvoJ2u82orEPnh9lP6b-/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fw3c.github.io%252Fwcag%252Funderstanding%252Fredundant-entry.html%26data%3D05%257C01%257Cacampbell%2540nomensa.com%257Cd957fcba12bb49aa704808da47e061d9%257Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%257C0%257C0%257C637901326287787341%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3DsIeLFf6UJwkfksNi%252BbbW7nOIeWVIzA7UUYmuk8sZ0PI%253D%26reserved%3D0>

The SC was last discussed Dec 3rd:
https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-ag-minutes#t24

The change history is here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commits/main/guidelines/sc/22/redundant-entry.html<https://secure-web.cisco.com/18GMjsZ6X9BKvX8_pDpO73lrT_LjVAiPRsZvVDF2Hl9HWHXoLUETubNZfbKB_lhual88gE2w8UrGYGNOM2LbjwOaOwr8It9ykcLbBd-SdEDYLxNrZWGBUfMrB-YHh9cJWWIsZ9OM7o7R76TANn6hik-f9SWlTArOMvwDs2w2ji-MuplL-5guNa8WEaBWQECZlTP8ET_G6rbYl_8XatXvpy6gK03tT9lXHPnXUvn40ccHBv-BTo9FUT8_53dCWhvFzwmiOSJX_oUJJP3M87GfKhlfJ70tzky98JVUdMQSwZVNrIBT3idARicKpLa-mS_KgnqXWS5Y46qOrmIqyYb_tSWR3AXzO3pOT5zrEtiZMDam6sW_ZBxrHj8sLet48XOg9iSUcgC2BW_EteMgSe4Bgykl962zRFUI6ECv0NlcbiottMQgrTMZ74R9pTi03Hpo8O8hkI7nXW2VNf_rl06fFQrbykC7ehawA3eO7RRPpomIhdbUo7D7FnFx93unpqACJ/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Fw3c%252Fwcag%252Fcommits%252Fmain%252Fguidelines%252Fsc%252F22%252Fredundant-entry.html%26data%3D05%257C01%257Cacampbell%2540nomensa.com%257Cd957fcba12bb49aa704808da47e061d9%257Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%257C0%257C0%257C637901326287787341%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3DEqWoXM1dtaEZNSfc2M2sULmJik1VC9M7zZ1YDC5g8L0%253D%26reserved%3D0>

The surveys are available here:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry/results and
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/results

The github issues (all closed) are listed here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%223.3.8+Redundant+Entry%22<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EjPmDN9kkq3PlLYfojVOt4Im5IO4K5V32HtrhtszleEmccZ2n7uXkqxtls0aLmFE3ivhd2pZYRnYMQqPAZxgEQWXUfMwVUeusjSsVTgRWwsYX3RQF2nwKKN1exqNaer3TWnzRyEmf3ZYmzXg2hKXSvW7wTcZDt-ZEWVhoNi5tRySpFEZ7PWSgwnFB2gXuLsh0h_jSG0QpJsPkLPFr_wbhbny_nbOfZdPopyb-oJsFMib30p4IUouD2EHwXkXixoqIiFv0gbfq_I6o5cJ1zNwL-VqBRQ9LbpPXfeecArnxaOPX9cyUpX8M9qbuo0yGFrsIl8iVKdtBMhZ7Smj3Qhm4qzZoEIXAWlKd1OJV9IUeilZazjSHanVaeAtEELhGsafTgTzdeFf070sCups7-s4lfoqBg1wLaoKySLcxEbfF7_aMZrLRYZJ90zCrcRUyrAHzyNO0LOOF7hD2uwcg2ouywSCgiXu9whZnmxOfbdBKb9YQQBcdeQ5306QpGM-phkc/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Fw3c%252Fwcag%252Fissues%253Fq%253Dis%25253Aissue%252Blabel%25253A%2525223.3.8%252BRedundant%252BEntry%252522%26data%3D05%257C01%257Cacampbell%2540nomensa.com%257Cd957fcba12bb49aa704808da47e061d9%257Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%257C0%257C0%257C637901326287787341%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3D34k8eetjhLFCW2AtBGUzmWWYWA79fPmI5t6VTU7pFT8%253D%26reserved%3D0>+

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
--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/121bntoCQIKRrp1Ow4Sr8PNKiqCNm50IBh1Fve5yAIQDQmaSrqPG4aQ5FZkaKfZIonLnaqfJtibKHXfnhiDrCRYkW4vH74sJaCY0YntG-IFau_GVu1AKlTW1wpB2Scl4R9pW0w0Lng-NhfT__gI7c6BY4jiqpdy5TGEVuah3wsBCKSk78KL0jLiSEqSXQNf3zA4M10FDpp3R8Al2QKHO1_DGVdYWgq7bVelecyclVET5_2_HCPnHStlh4gcMBRBM3a-yrKTUb5XDkqIQRThvUmt4FTHsfSLujvGlbQe5kx566X0jzWmGs8fYSUd_Vluy10H7ku3u7b9qhP1YBtwcvzjUrEH3trxzsaUbg2LdMlNJVcdoKE0dzWaull4qRPPB1cRn5GXW5P5k46z4rKWji1lTgRh46TIeJxgvn82k2KtW7LmdiAGe3zeXAxDVq6BMR02snXjJ6h0keWks3p7frrhlT5B2UZC5uIjaAUH8lwew/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com>