Re: Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2

> 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.

I’ve read all your comments, but I’m still not clear why this is the case. A new version has to be reported differently due to new / changed SCs.

As it stands (i.e. decisions from meetings), we’d remove it from 2.2 (with a note), not from 2.0/2.1.

In that case, where:
> For most of us WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 will continue to be the norm we work on for the next few years.

When reporting on 2.1 you’d continue as you do now.

WCAG 2.2 is a new version, it has to be reported differently because there are new (and one changed level) criteria.


> 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.

That is my impression to, but it is a change to current recommendations and I agree we should be careful and reach out to stakeholders about that change.


> 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.

As it stands (on current decisions), there would be no change to 2.0/2.1, so we are not recommending a change to reporting there (as part of this decision).

I (personally) think it would be good to at least include a note to say 4.1.1 is obsolete/defunct in 2.0 & 2.1 and the sub-set of ‘real’ issues can be reported under other criteria. I don’t want to rush that decision, we could be swayed by discussions with stakeholders.

However, WCAG 2.2 is a new version. I think it is within our remit and our responsibility to remove an old SC that has no impact on practical accessibility but does generate non-productive work.

Then it will be other organisations remit & responsibility to decide what to do with the new version.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

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