Re: Removing 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2

> On Jan 6, 2023, at 5:06 AM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
> Hey Alastair,
> I don't know what to say that I haven't already. We promised WCAG 2.2 would be backward compatible. What I'm hearing you say is that with the current decisions, it won't be. That WCAG 2.1 requires things not required under WCAG 2.2, but we may re-release WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, and that we'd retroactively make WCAG 2.2 backward compatible again?


Hmmmm
This appears to be a misunderstanding of backward compatibility - and a misunderstanding of what WCAG committed to.

For two standards to be compatible means you can meet both without any conflict.    
'This passes
NOTE: there is a different definition of compatibility for interconnection standards — but that is not what this is.

The commitment of WCAG WG was that it would not reduce accessibility in future versions over the previous versions
This also passes that — since it has been established that there are no benefits to PWD that are lost.  What was a problem a couple decades ago just isn't a problem anymore

There was also a commitment that meeting future would also pass the past one
And this is why the group is (separately for time's sake since the group is trying to close out all the 2.2 issues first and fast so CR can be completed) marking it as obsolete in older versions.

> I feel that what I'm suggesting isn't difficult or unreasonable, so I do not understand the push-back I'm getting.
> 1. Decide what to do with SC 4.1.1, not just for WCAG 2.2, but also for 2.1 and 2.0
> 2. Coordinate change we decide to make to 2.1 and 2.0 with key stakeholders so that we can know whether the changes we want to say can be adopted
> 3. Provide recommendations for organisations that need to test / conform to versions of WCAG with, and without 4.1.1 in it

I agree it would be good to decide them all at once.  And that was tried but some felt we should think about 2.0 and 2.1 a bit more.  For 2.2 what we should do was clear. 

And stakeholders (consumers and evaluators and mainstream companies and AT vendors and the Access Board ) were already consulted and all said it could go or 'please get rid of it — it wastes lots of people’s time and has no benefit (anymore)'. 

I haven’t seen anyone argue for it for any accessibility reason — or for any reason except that it used to be useful and was in our older versions.  

Do you know of any value of 4.1.1 in terms of actual impact on the accessibility of web content for people with disabilities  (that isnt already also covered under other provisions)?   No one I have heard from does. 

gregg

------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Jan 6, 2023, at 5:06 AM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey Alastair,
> 
> I don't know what to say that I haven't already. We promised WCAG 2.2 would be backward compatible. What I'm hearing you say is that with the current decisions, it won't be. That WCAG 2.1 requires things not required under WCAG 2.2, but we may re-release WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, and that we'd retroactively make WCAG 2.2 backward compatible again?
>