W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2022

Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)

From: Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:56:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFfV1N7yyZ1N_UPTTB+Bofk4O+KGc7n4NB2fQs8BkxJiJuW=5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
-1 (please note: this Objection is submitted as an individual member of the
AGWG, not in my role as an AC representative).



With respect to SC 2.4.11 Focus Appearance:



Focus indicators are a function of the browser – a user agent. Without a
full exception for browser default focus indicators this SC holds Content
Authors responsible to overcome the deficits of User Agents. This is new
territory for WCAG and is counter to the W3C’s own WAI discussion on how
Accessibility has multiple essential components that interrelate at
Essential Components of Web Accessibility [1]. The components described can
be thought of as a “three-legged stool”:


   - Users
   - User Agents: browsers, media players, assistive technologies, and
   other “user agents”
   - Content Authors: designers, content contributors, developers,
   authoring tools

It’s one thing to require Content Authors to *make what they author
accessible* to certain standards. It is another thing to require them to
also *overcome the accessibility deficits of a user agent.*



The AGWG charter only gives it the ability to provide normative guidance to
web content authors. That limitation does not mean that the AGWG should
give content authors the responsibility to fix what is clearly a deficit of
another “leg” nor absolve users from using assistive technologies that are
currently available to enhance focus indicators.  This SC provides relevant
guidance for when content authors choose to change the default focus
indicator, but it should not require content authors to change it if they
don’t choose to.



The W3C, however, has a larger view than just web content authors. For
example, part of the W3C’s Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working
Group’s mission is “coordination of harmonized accessibility strategies
within W3C” [2]. Instead of (mis)placing the responsibility for browser
focus indicator visibility on web content authors, perhaps a group such as
the APA or the Accessibility Features Community Group [3] could work with
browser manufacturers (all major browser manufacturers are W3C members) to
improve their support for people with disabilities.



The reason this (placement of responsibility for focus indicators) really
matters is that the intent of the AGWG is that WCAG 2.2 be taken up by
regulatory bodies and referenced by legal decisions (as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
already are) and be submitted to ISO, as quickly as possible. This makes
WCAG de facto more than a voluntary standard. Making it a requirement to
modify default focus indicators all but guarantees that non-technically
inclined, small-to-medium website owners around the globe will be put at
regulatory or legal risk of non-conformance for something they didn’t or
can’t change with their tools.



[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/

[2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/

[3] https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/a11yfeat


*Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS | *Director, Services Methodology
| 540-848-5220
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
www.deque.com


On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:31 PM Kersey, Ian (TR Product) <
Ian.Kersey@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:

> 0
>
> Thomson Reuters continues to object to the focus appearance SC despite
> recent modifications.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
> *Ian Kersey*
>
> Senior Accessibility Specialist
>
> Pronouns: he/him/his
>
>
>
> *Thomson Reuters*
>
>
>
> Ian.Kersey@thomsonreuters.com
>
>
>
> thomsonreuters.com
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthomsonreuters.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CIan.Kersey%40thomsonreuters.com%7C621477c6cd4747a7f04908d9cedc9488%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637768269042108162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=vnIKuakf4B0L5LToeU8b%2BvinZN%2BbmDyDnBeDl%2FJuDHM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> facebook.com/thomsonreuters
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffacebook.com%2Fthomsonreuters&data=04%7C01%7CIan.Kersey%40thomsonreuters.com%7C621477c6cd4747a7f04908d9cedc9488%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637768269042108162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=FGwvaF%2FBWQwAyJoaApmaqvmGeMcUZpoJot4N8i0pfcc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/thomsonreuters
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fthomsonreuters&data=04%7C01%7CIan.Kersey%40thomsonreuters.com%7C621477c6cd4747a7f04908d9cedc9488%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637768269042108162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=55n0WEZzeqRxmA9vpTKmh92ir8pgyv8F%2FYhsoRpTSi4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> linkd.in/thomson_reuters
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkd.in%2Fthomson_reuters&data=04%7C01%7CIan.Kersey%40thomsonreuters.com%7C621477c6cd4747a7f04908d9cedc9488%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637768269042108162%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=IVURCjXgkYj2vpOyatsz3M6AlLlD%2F6vV8F%2B%2FXCF%2BJKk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
> *From:* Bossley, Peter (TR Product) <Peter.Bossley@thomsonreuters.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 7:51 AM
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
>
>
>
> 0
>
> Thomson Reuters continues to object to the focus appearance SC despite
> recent modifications.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2022 1:19 PM
> *To:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> *External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Call for Consensus – ends Tuesday August 30th at 2pm Boston time (a
> shorter time as this is take 2).
>
>
>
> 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/#new-features-in-wcag-2-2
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/*new-features-in-wcag-2-2__;Iw!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!flmuTjETBmx5VnifT4RMwveezuna8hoG0YKK-mat9hkeZB1Iec0NLqKp_RWvazwy6gMCQUwvCZO8LlCQKq5wEBxiEGvT$>
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the
>  CFC deadline.
>
>
>
> An outline of changes since the last CFC is below.
>
>
>
>
>
>    - Several (proposed) WCAG 2.1/2.0 errata have been tackled. We also
>    agreed to re-publish WCAG 2.1 so the errata will show up in the main spec,
>    and we can tackle more of them before re-publication.
>    - The Flash provisions have been updated.
>    - The exception for Accessibility Authentication has been changed as
>    part of the re-structuring (no change to meaning/requirement).
>
>    https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#accessible-authentication-no-exception
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/*accessible-authentication-no-exception__;Iw!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!flmuTjETBmx5VnifT4RMwveezuna8hoG0YKK-mat9hkeZB1Iec0NLqKp_RWvazwy6gMCQUwvCZO8LlCQKq5wEESANdJt$>
>
>    - Focus appearance:
>       - The first line was updated to address the ‘persistence’ objection.
>       - The sub-components aspect was updated.
>       - The SC will be marked at risk due to complexity.
>       - We have added a note on interpreting the visual aspect for
>       sizing, we’re just narrowing down the wording/terms on that currently.
>       - The user-agent survey was very balanced, so checking previous
>       results on the same topic the chairs interpret the consensus view is to use
>       the current exceptions, status quo.
>    - Focus obscured: No change to the SC, but we are planning to add a
>    cross-reference in the understanding document to focus-appearance for
>    semi-opaque scenarios.
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 August 2022 17:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 29 August 2022 17:56:55 UTC