Re: Removing 4.1.1

Hi Wilco,

Just taking a point at a time:

> I am concerned with the direction the AGWG chairs are taking this.

I think Gregg answered that.


> This would have been a fantastic thing for AGWG to work on two years ago.

Well, we did start. In fact, you did in https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/770 in 2019.

What has changed since then is the understanding of the scope, where no-one on that thread questioned the content-model aspect (included in the description) until the more recent thread: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2525

Removing the content model examples removed the objections from that thread, so removal is actually the cleanest way to update this. (Compared to persuading lots of people ‘you were interpreting it wrong’.)


> For example, what are even the requirements for publishing an amended WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. It's never been done. Does it need to go through formal approval? I bet someone knows, but nobody on the call today did.

We already decided to do that for WCAG 2.1 earlier this year:
https://www.w3.org/2022/08/16-ag-minutes#item06

So we would be re-doing that process. As we said on the call, it would be an errata for the change then agreeing to re-publish. We do need to check about the scale of review required for that type of change, but it is within the group’s remit to do so.

Also, that is why I wanted to separate the decision for 2.2 from the previous versions. There is a clear migration path for people moving versions, we don’t have to decide on the past ones immediately. However, several members of the group think it’s a good idea, so it was appropriate to consider that.


> Then there is bigger stuff, like what does this mean for WCAG's ISO standard. Can that be updated? What's the process for that? If it can be done, who would need to approve such a thing, and will they? Can we do it with this W3C legal entity thing going on? What about other standards like EN 301 549? Can they, and if so will they adopt a similar change? What about policy and legislation?

I heard the answers to most of these on the call, or they aren’t (or shouldn’t be) relevant.
E.g. Bruce said that the change will cause him a headache, but it didn’t matter whether it was just 2.2 or for 2.0/2.1. Gregg said that legislation refers to specific dated versions, they will decide in their own time whether/when to update. ( I suspect that is the same for ISO, and we can ask about that.)

If the legal entity change forced a change the process, that would be a big thing, we would have heard about that.

> What about WCAG 2 translations, will those be updated, or is Germany just going to keep using 4.1.1 because it was never removed from their translation? What about test methodologies like Trusted Tester and RGGA? How long will all of these things be in disagreement while they're sorting out this update?

To me doing this as part of a version change would cleaner, but I also appreciate the points from Andrew and Gregg on why the change should be made to 2.0/2.1.

We can’t answer questions about other organisations processes or update schedules. What we can do is broadcast the change and encourage people to update. It seems to have gone around a lot already and we haven’t even done it yet!

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>