Re: Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2

Hey Alastair,

No laws or regs reference WCAG 2.2 yet, so this is not a change from that
> point of view.
>
>
>
> There is an ongoing discussion on whether/how we update WCAG 2.0 & 2.1,
> but that is not the focus of this CFC.
>

That's not a separate question though. For many of us, certainly for me,
what we do with 4.1.1 in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 influences what we do with it for
WCAG 2.2. My impression from the last call we had is that we were going to
keep things consistent. If you're saying that's not decided yet then that's
yet another reason for me to object to this change.


> We have a draft mapping document we can incorporate into the understanding
> document for people migrating to WCAG 2.2.
>

I didn't ask about mapping. For most of us WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 will continue to
be the norm we work on for the next few years. What do we all do with SC
4.1.1? Would AGWG recommend we stop reporting to 4.1.1, even while EN / ISO
/ 508 still includes it? Should we only report those issues that can be
mapped to other SCs? What should test tool developers do? If we don't
communicate about this everyone's just going to go off in different
directions.


> I think the WCAG 2.2 CR is our best mechanism to get a wide review of this
> change.
>

Putting this directly into CR is communicating that this is a done deal.
It's not even marked as "at risk". We're making the same mistake we made
with CR1. We're introducing a big change directly into CR, and we're not
giving ourselves a way out if public feedback goes badly. Besides that, I
don't think we should rely on CR as the sole mechanism by which we gather
feedback on such a significant change. Reaching out to ISO, NEN, and other
key stakeholders before we put this into CR is the right thing to do, and
it gives us important information about the consequences of the decision
we're about to make. I don't know why we would guess, when we can just ask.





>
>
>
> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 6 January 2023 at 10:23
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: CFC - Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2
>
> -1
>
> As I've noted before, I think this is too big a change to make this late
> in the process. As far as I've heard, AGWG has made no attempt to
> coordinate this change with organisations that rely on the stability of
> WCAG. I've heard a lot of probably's, likely's, and safe-bet's, but nobody
> actually knows what the timeline would be for updating ISO, EN, 508, RGAA,
> official translations, etc. or if they aren't going to make the change at
> all. We have no recommendations for auditors, trainers, test tool
> developers. No provisions were made for organisations that are required to
> conform to WCAG 2.0 or 2.1, but want to still adopt 2.2.
>
> This all seems solvable to me. We need to write a couple more documents,
> get on a few zoom calls with crucial stakeholders. Have a timeline worked
> out. That's it. Compared to everything else we've done in WCAG 2.2 its not
> a big job. But crucially, it's not a thing we can do properly when we're
> already in overtime for our charter. We've done too little, too late.
>
> I've suggested leaving the SC in and listing it as obsolete to try and
> mitigate down-stream impact. Another option is that we can delay this
> change until after WCAG 2.2 becomes rec. AGWG already decided that removing
> an SC in an errata is something it can do, so then we can do it for 2.2.
> I'm sure there are other options I'm not thinking of too.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 11:15 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Wednesday January 11th at 6pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> This is specifically for WCAG 2.2 only.
>
>
>
> We have previously resolved (in meetings) to remove SC 4.1.1 Parsing from
> WCAG 2.2, replacing the SC contents with a note explaining that it has been
> removed:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2022/12/13-ag-minutes#item12
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2022%2F12%2F13-ag-minutes%23item12&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cadde7380083243dcf33608daefd00fc2%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638085974155971171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6FRMQPX4WyCQprcx1H5bpTwS3Sl2M3RHbUWR4QVlP1c%3D&reserved=0>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2022/11/22-ag-minutes#t08
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2022%2F11%2F22-ag-minutes%23t08&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cadde7380083243dcf33608daefd00fc2%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638085974155971171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3EWi7gSR4wqO4Q1RWht1SH4hijUNnXAwtjU4R6j7R3M%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> The change can be seen in the editor’s draft:
>
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#parsing
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Fguidelines%2F22%2F%23parsing&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cadde7380083243dcf33608daefd00fc2%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638085974155971171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ts%2Fm8m%2BXCH3eWhPcQArq5OhMFzw%2FHJTuORFmBLaonUM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> And the understanding document (which needs some styling updates) shows
> the proposed content:
>
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/parsing.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Funderstanding%2Fparsing.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cadde7380083243dcf33608daefd00fc2%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638085974155971171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BZD9VwNXxRrgDqlOW9Xsf1VabTj2oZzY%2FrBqK8MMKfY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> We will deal with any updates to WCAG 2.0 & 2.1 separately, this CFC is
> for the new 2.2 version only.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> 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%7Cadde7380083243dcf33608daefd00fc2%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638085974155971171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DWG4EjChZcs9U8zdh%2FJdczGi0H70lj%2F4dvVqj9Lhy5M%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
>
>


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