Re: WCAG 2.2 easy misc issues

Hi Gundula,

You said:
> By adding the “  “, the reference to object recognition and personal content becomes the reference to the terms “object recognition” and “personal content”, not the object recognition itself and the personal content itself.

The change is from:
> Objects to recognize and user provided content may be represented by images, video, or audio.
To:
> "Object recognition" and "Personal content" may be represented by images, video, or audio.

The note is referring to the bullets with those names. If you read it in context (under the SC text), I’m not sure how else that could be reasonably interpreted.


> That is, when talking about personal content, the term “Personal content” may be represented by an image.

Indeed, the SC text already says “non-text content”, the note clarifies that it could be image, video or audio.


> This might lead to different results when applying and testing and does not express what the group intended to express.

I’m struggling to see what would test differently, and if there is a difference the way it is stated now matches the intent.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 15:37
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.2 easy misc issues
-1

Hello Alastair,

Sorry, I had no chance to look into this earlier and to put together a response.
(I seem to remember that we agreed to always allow several working days for answering.)

Concerning
Note in Accessible Authentication needs to be reworded #2714
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc-normative/results#xq3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc-normative%2Fresults%23xq3&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t7JPBZ2QV4TdFj52JECt8vyNeWojA0JEoNSj4TaP0QI%3D&reserved=0>

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.

I still feel it changes the meaning.

"Object recognition" and "Personal content" may be represented by images, video, or audio.

By adding the “  “, the reference to object recognition and personal content becomes the reference to the terms “object recognition” and “personal content”, not the object recognition itself and the personal content itself.
That is, when talking about personal content, the term “Personal content” may be represented by an image.
This might lead to different results when applying and testing and does not express what the group intended to express.

Is this perception different for native speakers?


Best regards,
Gundula

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2022 00:07
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: WCAG 2.2 easy misc issues

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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc-normative%2Fresults%23xq2&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6VTUfRAaCKn8%2FH1Hy6sa%2BaNMwqa4YJypMBALb4W7R%2Bw%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc-normative%2Fresults%23xq3&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t7JPBZ2QV4TdFj52JECt8vyNeWojA0JEoNSj4TaP0QI%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc-normative%2Fresults%23xq4&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yTDqaX5%2FlVRBBw9lhgbQJhw6FfJvg%2Br2t3ljGWqNtls%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc-normative%2Fresults%23xq6&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D1ndCmQK1XWZtP8gWTaS9GGk0s9YfAt4BBw3LCr1txY%3D&reserved=0>
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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd5ba8c9ceeaa4d9446de08dadd1ff732%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638065426616888784%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bkRQT8ZJASa1vG5TIUCij5BVBI%2BRhhmDSZgzaDoR10I%3D&reserved=0>