RE: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Revised)

+1

My -1 earlier this week (below) was because of Gregg’s post to the list earlier that day.
Those recommendations are already being incorporated.
Thank you all!


From: Bruce Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 5:34 PM
To: AGWG Chairs <group-ag-chairs@w3.org>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Revised)

-1 because of other -1 which I would prefer to see discussed.

This is nitpick, may be editorial, and is not my reason for a -1 vote.

The Exception in 3.3.7 is not a full sentence and does not follow the pattern of any other 2.0/2.1/2.2 exception.  Please accept my apologies for not spotting this sooner.

WCAG 2.0 exceptions in SC are part of the main body of the SC.  With 2.1 (and now 2.2) we mostly use the word “Exception” followed by the exception.  Those exceptions are full stand-alone sentences, and are sensible when read outside of the context of the SC.

3.3.7 Current:

Exception: When the cognitive function test is to recognize objects, or content the user provided to the website.

It should be something like:

Exception:  An authentication process may rely on content that the user provides to the website and cognitive function tests that are limited to recognizing objects.



Editorial (but dates to 2.0), please see last line of first note under definition for Relative luminance<https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#dfn-relative-luminance> -- the ending period should be inside the parenthesis.

Current:             The "^" character is the exponentiation operator.  (Formula taken from [IEC-4WD]).
Should be:         The "^" character is the exponentiation operator.  (Formula taken from [IEC-4WD].)


From: Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <rmontgomery@loc.gov<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:13 AM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Revised)

Mike,

The difference is that the AAA version has no exception. The CFC for that text is at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022AprJun/0183.html

Kind regards,

Rachael

From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:10 AM
To: "Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael" <rmontgomery@loc.gov<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Revised)
Resent-From: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:09 AM

3.3.7 and 3.3.8 seem to have identical normative text?

Mike

From: Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <rmontgomery@loc.gov<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 7:03 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Revised)
My apologies, I used the incorrect URI. Please review https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/ The revised CFC is below. Call for Consensus – ends Thursday August 11th at 23:59pm Boston time. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
My apologies, I used the incorrect URI. Please review https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/

The revised CFC is below.

Call for Consensus – ends Thursday August 11th at 23:59pm Boston time.
The Working Group has approved CFCs for all new normative content in WCAG 2.2 and it is ready to move to Candidate Recommendation.
The draft is at https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/
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.