Re: Removing 4.1.1

Hi Alastair,

Correct. I am suggesting that as part of the (are we saying 'deprecation'?)
of that SC, that we include a Note clearly explaining this. I'd support an
Editor's Note directly inline in the normative document, as well as
appropriate mention (explanation) in the current (and presumably to be
updated) Understanding Document associated with that SC.

JF

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:10 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Presumably you mean that for any updates 2.0/2.1?
>
>
>
> Any regs that use 2.2 would then be aligned with that, so there shouldn’t
> be confusion there.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 17:02
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, Abou-Zahra, Shadi <
> sabouzah@amazon.at>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Removing 4.1.1
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> While I too support the 'retirement' of this SC, it is clear that it MAY
> introduce some confusion with regard to conformance and legal obligations.
>
>
>
> I think that it is critical that as part of retiring 4.1.1 that we make it
> crystal clear in written form that the removal of that Success Criteria
> ONLY impacts the WCAG conformance model, but that legislated requirements
> in different territories MAY still insist that the SC be met, to be in
> alignment with the legislated conformance requirements of those
> territories. I  believe what we need to do is be crystal clear that while
> we've adjusted the Technical Standard, we have no influence or impact on
> the Legislation(s) that use that Standard.
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:25 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We think it probably won't be a problem for ISO, 508, EN, etc., but we
> don't know.
>
>
>
> What we do know is how these type of regs typically update.
>
>
>
> Section 508 is still on 2.0. If you are meeting 508, you have to meet what
> they have written down, which is from that dated version of 2.0.
>
> They could go through an internal process to update based on WCAG
> changing, but it is up to them. (How long did people complain about section
> 508 being on version 1.0?)
>
>
>
> The EN is apparently scheduled to be updated next year, so now would be a
> good time to update WCAG (2.2). Again, they have their own version based on
> WCAG 2.1, so it is up to them how they take on changes.
>
>
>
> Apparently, ISO is waiting for 2.2 before doing an update to 40500.
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
>
> That is up to the regulations concerned, it isn’t something we control.
> Whether someone is required to comply with a law (and conform to a
> particular standard) will depend on the law.
>
>
>
> For example, if you are a public sector body in the EU, I think you’ll
> need to comply with their current regs until they are updated (i.e. the
> version incorporated into the EN, which includes 4.1.1).
>
>
>
> If you are a commercial organisation without specific regulations/laws,
> you have more flexibility and could use 2.2 and/or ignore 4.1.1 anyway
> (particularly if we remove it from those and/or add a note).
>
>
>
> I think the key word from Shadi’s email (that I just saw), is “cascade”.
> We don’t control every resource, but unless we make the change, the cascade
> doesn’t happen. It is the same for adding SCs.
>
>
>
> If we do make the change, we have a little influence over how hard the
> change is pushed. E.g. removing it from older versions and re-publishing
> those would make it more apparent than only doing so in 2.2. Plus however
> much time WAI (and AG members) wish to put into publicising the change.
>
>
>
> We are in the (privileged) position of starting off a change like that,
> but these type of things always take time to spread out. From a quick
> google, there are plenty of articles for building-regulation updates, we
> aren’t the only ones!
>
>
>
> 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%7Ceab6daab25c94626120108dae3751d9e%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638072389395758638%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TH827gIqgn8ay27eSNLdDY2WTHp7ktQLTTlp5vxysjs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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"
>


-- 
*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"