Re: Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation

Hi Rain,

Thank you for the comments, I can provide some high level answers here, but we will respond more fully in the github issues.


  *   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).

I’m not aware of any proposed language that would clear some objections without raising other objections. During CR it will be a case of small editorial updates, or removal.



  *   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.

The size had to be reduced due to feedback in the first review stage, I don’t think there is a path to increasing the size without significantly changing the scope of the SC. I.e. scoping it to only apply to certain elements. Even then, I’m not sure that would be possible to do in a reliable way.

In WCAG 3, if there is some form of scoping available based on things important to a particular path, that might be possible. However, it very unlikely to be re-visited in the 2.x line.

I’m not sure how setting a baseline size would harm users with dexterity challenges in the long run, but we should certainly position it (in the understanding document) as a baseline, not the size to aim for.




  *   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?).

This SC is separate from keyboard interaction, which is covered under 2.1.1<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#keyboard>. If the dragging movement is not essential to achieve a function, but it can be done with single-pointer taps/clicks, then it would meet text of the SC. That is separate from whether / how it works with a keyboard.

The note is to separate user-agent features (e.g. scrolling) from authored content that creates a dragging feature.



  *   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.

Indeed, there are quite a few updates to the understanding documents (including that one) in the WCAG 2.x queue. We carry on with that queue next week.

Kind regards,

-Alastair



From: Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>
Date: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 21:53
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:13 PM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0010.html__%3B!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt_GQIojS%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756128940167%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FVynHdVhi7%2BsWrrH9UOiREQF5H6tBQ782Dnhh0%2Bdwa0%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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0047.html__%3B!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt_JxgBQV%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756129096390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YP3bFId9Vf1%2Bt2v1oPDaaFruKT%2BRDs1xnSnm4KKgPa0%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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2022OctDec%2F0131.html__%3B!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt4q8wlLs%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756129096390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j%2FEZWkKKpYpLrQ7l1m9G6jGERufKsIssQTV%2FQdLTUpY%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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0014.html__%3B!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt7hP3KPi%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756129096390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zO%2FgTM5Eb7Haa02z43hPQrj5NAscHr97%2FpLR7hbcuDE%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%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fservices.w3.org%2Fhtmldiff%3Fdoc1%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fwww.w3.org*2FTR*2FWCAG22*2F%26doc2%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fw3c.github.io*2Fwcag*2Fguidelines*2F22*2F__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxt6kPFBlB%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756129096390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oeWjpqNU4lbNCKQVcqA0I8%2F7G0bjKqKGdIVLfLzIejs%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=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2Fwww.nomensa.com__%3B!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!bt_ZbQLRibI_S7GcpSTbAcoUyOQOgn3r-Tkuzr0Uykcx951VHpar9R-wtAYysxSplQki-76_zoEpwHKw-XAxtw1jL2Xk%24&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C3cde6a2fc0fc40d496b708daf99e7025%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638096756129096390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ps4XQWn71f8K%2Bhu%2BKE69IbHcN6CP%2FtbTE4hWZxtClf0%3D&reserved=0>