Re: CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation

0

Some potential larger concerns that are likely to raise conversation in a
CR:

   - *Focus appearance:* still contains language that was questioned in the
   previous CR and is not yet addressing concerns (removal being one possible
   way to address).
   - *Target size:* remain concerned that this target size is too small and
   would like to see more evidence that adjusting to this target size in the
   guidelines won't harm users with dexterity challenges in the long run.
   - *Dragging movements:* unclear what the expectation is for keyboard
   interaction, or language that ensures that, when the dragging movement
   itself is not essential for the purpose, there is a way for keyboard-only
   users to interact (is the note intended to clarify this?).
   - *Accessible authentication:* we had received feedback asking for more
   clarity on what alternative authentication measures might be, as well as
   warnings that personal content might create greater risk, and it doesn't
   appear that we included anything from that feedback. I understand that we
   want to avoid being too specific given that technology is rapidly changing,
   but want to make sure we have these concerns in mind.


On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 2:55 PM Bossley, Peter (TR Product) <
Peter.Bossley@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:

> -1 if this would result in the inability to remove focus appearance at a
> later date.
>
> +1 otherwise.
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:13 PM
> *To:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] CFC - Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
>
>
>
> *External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0010.html__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt_GQIojS$>
>
> Target size:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0047.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0047.html__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt_JxgBQV$>
>
> And other miscellaneous changes:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022OctDec/0131.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2022OctDec/0131.html__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt4q8wlLs$>
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0014.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0014.html__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt7hP3KPi$>
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__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__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt6kPFBlB$>
>
>
>
> Note that some changes are simply because the editors draft does not
> include CR content. Primarily that is in the introduction, but it is also
> missing the “at risk” markers. Those will still be included in the CR
> version.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to tolerate” this decision, please let the group know before the
> CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.nomensa.com__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxtw1jL2Xk$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>