Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation

Thanks Alastair,
This is not how I understood the decision from December. To make sure I
understand it; are you saying we're not LEAVING candidate rec until the
research is finished? Is that guaranteed then?

Here's the thing about that. What happens if the research shows (as people
have predicted) that the SC cannot be tested reliably? We can't introduce
an SC that doesn't meet WCAG's requirements. We might not be able to drop
the SC, going by how many people objected to that when it was last
proposed. And to change the SC would require doing a third CR, which I'm
not sure anyone wants either.

Before deciding if we should go to CR, I would really like to know what the
AG chairs plan to do if Focus Appearance proves unreliable.


On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:13 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
> We have triaged all the comments and dealt with those that impact the
> normative wording. Those that are tagged with 'understanding', 'technique',
> 'editorial' or 'response-only' we will carry on dealing with as part of the
> backlog meetings.
>
>
> The repeatability testing of focus-appearance was generated from one of
> the CR comments, and we will carry on with that during the (second) CR
> period.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 13 January 2023 at 09:33
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
>
> Hey Alastair,
>
> I would like a clarification. In the last call of December AGWG decided
> that it was going to perform a repeatability test of SC 2.4.11 Focus
> Appearance. You opened an issue on it last week:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2901
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fissues%2F2901&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5eR3nyEKwjvYRit%2FF2wfUj%2BJIR2pz%2F3OY3ct0mTO0kk%3D&reserved=0>.
> It seems to me like we're not actually done processing our CR1 comments
> until we've done that work. Why are we putting a second CR out if we're not
> done processing comments on the first?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:14 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> Call for Consensus – ends Wednesday January 18th at 5pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> The Working Group has approved CFCs for updated normative content in WCAG
> 2.2 and it is ready to re-start the Candidate Recommendation stage.
>
>
>
> Recent changes came from these CFCs:
>
> Removing 4.1.1:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0010.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0010.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0XOEwsEe6LDKbrGm43gqUa9kG91fNkIGidyiElkmoFg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Target size:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0047.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0047.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oqKNPZdeVWyJ9py3B1Z2OoubbmhSmwVX2e5RTkYb9ms%3D&reserved=0>
>
> And other miscellaneous changes:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022OctDec/0131.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2022OctDec%2F0131.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JubhxfywaIvySp%2FLMfL%2Bv6yGWDoxenoIse6sHpukXNY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0014.html
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0014.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IVYjXTT%2FwJw5yWYp2yWs3PAi82R01NvuLKOl2N5gaBo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> You can see a diff of the current draft compared to the previous CR
> version here:
>
>
> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG22%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Fguidelines%2F22%2F
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.w3.org%2Fhtmldiff%3Fdoc1%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252FTR%252FWCAG22%252F%26doc2%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fw3c.github.io%252Fwcag%252Fguidelines%252F22%252F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992045954629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mM3txou10PQLE%2F%2Bu967zcSKQBXqcVGypXKnztHL%2FbGg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Note that some changes are simply because the editors draft does not
> include CR content. Primarily that is in the introduction, but it is also
> missing the “at risk” markers. Those will still be included in the CR
> version.
>
>
>
> 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 tolerate” 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%7Cd1c51e9ba8fd4a87d0cf08daf5493533%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638091992046110841%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fgGxFhjmwybnm%2FD2k9r2APK6aMFd82RUwUg0yXcYo%2Bc%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