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

-1, I agree with Wilco, Melanie, and Caryn, in addition to my previously expressed concerns.

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 11:41 AM, Pagel, Caryn (TR Product) <Caryn.Pagel@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
> 
> -1 or 0. It's not clear to me what the correct way to vote is when my only objections are for 2.411 and it's marked at risk. If I'm voting on 2.2 as a whole, including 2.4.11 as is, my vote is -1. If I'm voting on 2.2, but 2.4.11 will continue to be worked on, than my vote is 0.
> 
> 2.4.11 concerns:
> As it's written today, it is too difficult for most people to understand. Designers, developers, testers and accessibility specialists may not know how to apply this SC their work. This statement is based on an internal survey we conducted at Thomson Reuters.
> I agree with others that the browser default should be named specifically as an exception.
> 
> Thanks,
> Caryn Pagel
> From: Joseph Yang <joseph.yang@servicenow.com <mailto:joseph.yang@servicenow.com>>
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 13:18
> To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.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: [EXT] Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
>  
> External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.
> 
> -1 
> I agree with Melanie and Wilco’s concerns
>  
> From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 at 10:21 AM
> To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation (Take 2)
> 
> [External Email]
>  
> 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!!N4vogdjhuJM!BTUBzaGzxkT4grvLbMvLMK8W0-LI5HvwbP4-ypZHnsPMmEpKMOEAd80PvZKH_yDT-H9qPu6zCJVrVrJd1MfH5bX2$>
>  
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CFC deadline.
>  
> An outline of changes since the last CFC is below.
>  
>  
> Several (proposed) WCAG 2.1/2.0 errata have been tackled. We also agreed to re-publish WCAG 2.1 so the errata will show up in the main spec, and we can tackle more of them before re-publication.
> 
> 
> The Flash provisions have been updated.
> 
> 
> The exception for Accessibility Authentication has been changed as part of the re-structuring (no change to meaning/requirement).
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#accessible-authentication-no-exception <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/*accessible-authentication-no-exception__;Iw!!N4vogdjhuJM!BTUBzaGzxkT4grvLbMvLMK8W0-LI5HvwbP4-ypZHnsPMmEpKMOEAd80PvZKH_yDT-H9qPu6zCJVrVrJd1PcQ0kmp$> 
> 
> 
> 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.