Re: Removing 4.1.1

Hey Shadi,

As always I appreciate the insight you bring to this. I'm worried though
about how many unknowns there are. We think it probably won't be a problem
for ISO, 508, EN, etc., but we don't know. It's not the decision itself
that bugs me, it's that we didn't prepare the WCAG user base for such a
change. As far as I've heard we didn't ask about it at all.

What happens if those can't be updated, or if it takes 5 years? Is anyone
required to conform to them required to continue testing 4.1.1? By removing
the SC we're implying that until the SC is removed from those documents,
people are still required to conform to them.



On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco, all,
>
>
>
> Looks like we’re all in agreement to “drop 4.1.1 in some way”, the
> disagreement seems to be on how. I’m not sure what your proposal is?
>
>
>
> I personally like Alastair’s proposal of separating out our thoughts for
> dropping 4.1.1 from WCAG 2.2 and from prior versions of WCAG:
>
>    - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2820#issuecomment-1342709648
>
>
>
> I think that most normative references to WCAG 2.x use a dated version of
> the spec. For example, EN 301 549, ISO 40500, and the technical standards
> for Section 508 refer to the specific publication dates of WCAG 2.0 and/or
> WCAG 2.1. I don’t think these technical standards, therefore any of the
> policies that refer to these technical standards, are immediately impacted
> regardless what we do in updates and republications of the spec. I think
> republishing WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 with a clear note added to the current
> SC text and title, and with further explanation in the Understanding
> documents is the clearest way forward – it maintains continuity and
> transparency, as well as guidance for people who need to continue using
> WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1. Not doing this would be irresponsible in my view, as
> it would mislead thousands of content and tool developers to do completely
> unnecessary work.
>
>
>
> As to WCAG 2.2, I can’t think of any good reason to keep the current SC
> text. I think the SC text should be removed from WCAG 2.2 but the document
> structure should still have the item 4.1.1 with an updated SC title (i.e.
> with a clear marker like “obsolete”, “removed”, or “rescinded”), and a
> clear note that refers to the Understanding documents for further
> background.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>   Shadi
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Shadi Abou-Zahra
>
> Amazon Devices and Services
>
> Principal Accessibility Standards and Policy Manager
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 December, 2022 11:26 PM
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL]Removing 4.1.1
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I am concerned with the direction the AGWG chairs are taking this. This
> would have been a fantastic thing for AGWG to work on two years ago. But to
> start this work now, with so little time left for us to figure out how to
> do this right, and when we're already in the extension period of our
> charter, I think it's inappropriate.
>
> I feel that something this significant deserves to be handled with a lot
> of care and forethought. 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.
>
> 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? 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?
>
> I'm sure this stuff can all be figured out, but we should have the answers
> before we make the change. We can't just throw out this curve ball and hope
> for the best. Please understand that I want to see 4.1.1 be dropped in some
> way. But we have a responsibility to coordinate and communicate about these
> things. We haven't done that, and we don't have time for it anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:42 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> In the discussion today
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/12/13-ag-minutes.html#t13> we decided (again) to
> remove 4.1.1 from WCAG 2.2 and include a note.
>
>
>
> We also got towards agreeing to do the same in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. That
> would involve creating an errata, then re-publishing the specs to include
> the errata.
>
>
>
> Areas of agreement:
>
>    - We don't want people to be required to test or report on 4.1.1.
>    - Any issues that impact end-users that are caught by other SC, so a
>    fully conforming 2.2 site would conform to 2.1/2.0 for those meaningful
>    issues (even if it still included 4.1.1).
>
>
>
> The rest of the discussion was how to implement it.
>
>
>
> Looking at the current editor’s draft, it would be like this:
>
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#parsing
>
>
>
> But with an additional note. Gregg suggested:
>
> “NOTE: This was originally adopted to address problems that Assistive
> Technology had directly parsing HTML. This is no longer true so this
> criterion no longer solves that problem and is removed.”
>
> That is in https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2840/files
>
>
>
> There is also a section at the top of the understanding document
> explaining the rationale.
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/parsing.html
>
> (I need to work out how to get the old SC text to appear on the
> understanding doc, remove the “new in wcag 2.2” bit, and add the mapping
> table.)
>
>
>
> So the question for 2.0/2.1 is whether to do exactly the same thing?
>
>
>
> Pertinent comments from the meeting included:
>
>    - Removing it from early specs feels like re-writing history.
>    - Keeping them consistent means that you maintain inter-version
>    compatibility.
>    - Keeping the SC text in allows the worst aspects of 4.1.1 to continue
>    (e.g. drive-by legal threats).
>    - We could maintain the SC text and add a note saying (strongly) not
>    to report on obsolete SCs.
>    - Regulations tend to use specific dates of a standard, so it doesn’t
>    change regulations until they decide to do so.
>
>
>
> Do you have any different arguments for/against removing 4.1.1 from
> 2.1/2.0?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
> [image: cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]
>
>
>
>
>
> Amazon Development Center Austria GmbH
> Brueckenkopfgasse 1
> 8020 Graz
> Oesterreich
> Sitz in Graz
> Firmenbuchnummer: FN 439453 f
> Firmenbuchgericht: Landesgericht fuer Zivilrechtssachen Graz
>
>
>

-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force