Re: WCAG 2.2 easy misc issues

+1

---
Best,

Todd Libby
Senior Accessibility Engineer
W3C Invited Expert
toddlibby@protonmail.com
https://toddl.dev

------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, December 7th, 2022 at 4:07 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> There are a few items from the survey that I think we can finalise asynchronously as they were very close.
>
> [Change First Note 3.2.6 Consistent Help to align better with SC text #2408]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc-normative/results#xq2
>
> This was 14 in favour of merging the PR, 2 with adjustment (but no adjustment suggested), I’ll merge.
>
> [Note in Accessible Authentication needs to be reworded #2714]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc-normative/results#xq3
>
> 15 in favour, 2 something else. Gundula and Oliver thought it changed the meaning, however, it now directly refers to the intended bullets in the SC.
> I’ll merge unless someone replies to object.
>
> [3.3.9 Redundant Entry out of order #2764]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc-normative/results#xq4
>
> 15 in favour, 2 something else. Gundula thought that readers might not understand the history and that we cannot change the numbering now. However, this is the last chance we have to re-order things without an errata. I’ll merge.
>
> [Normative wording inconsistencies for Accessible Authentication SCs #2715]
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc-normative/results#xq6
>
> 15 in favour, 1 agree with adjustment (but no adjustment suggested).
>
> I’ll merge.
>
> Any objections please reply soon. These SCs will come back via a (probably grouped) CFC as they are normative.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com