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

+1

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022, 6:29 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> +1
>
> JF
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 5:52 PM Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Benjamin Tillyer <ben.tillyer@icloud.com>
>> *Date: *Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:41 PM
>> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> *Cc: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject: *[EXT] Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
>> (Take 2)
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On 26 Aug 2022, at 18:20, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. 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.
>>
>>
>>    2. The Flash provisions have been updated.
>>
>>
>>    3. 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
>>
>>
>>
>>    4. Focus appearance:
>>
>>
>>    1. The first line was updated to address the ‘persistence’ objection.
>>       2. The sub-components aspect was updated.
>>       3. The SC will be marked at risk due to complexity.
>>       4. We have added a note on interpreting the visual aspect for
>>       sizing, we’re just narrowing down the wording/terms on that currently.
>>       5. 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>