Hey folks,
I want to make sure my comments aren't getting used out of context.
My biggest concern is to keep WCAG 2.2 consistent with WCAG 2.1 and 2.0. I
don't think we should do one thing in WCAG 2.2, and another in 2.1 and 2.0.
That's why I responded the way I did on the survey. It's also why I voted
against removing SC 4.1.1 from WCAG 2.2. I didn't want us to make a
decision on WCAG 2.2 before there was clarity on WCAG 2.1 and 2.0.
I don't support removing SC 4.1.1 from any version of WCAG, but if we're
going to do it from WCAG 2.2, which the group decided they wanted to do,
then we need to make that same change to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1.
Again, my preferred option would have been for us to mark the SC as
obsolete, and put in a note that says that because modern markup languages
define how to parse invalid markup, that unless you need to support a
pre-HTML 5 browser, SC 4.1.1 is always satisfied.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:
> Hi Matt, Mark, Katie,
>
>
>
> Matt wrote:
>
> > What impact will this change have if you’re required to follow the ISO
> version of 2.0? Will it be updated, as well, or will this fork the
> standards?
>
>
>
> My understanding is that if you follow the current ISO version then it
> will be as it is now, but there is an effort to provide an updated version
> to ISO based on 2.2.
>
>
>
> Mark asked:
>
> > Is it an errata?
>
>
>
> We would implement it as an errata, then it would go for public review
> before we can re-publish WCAG 2.0/2.1 with the erratas included. (All of
> them, not just this one.)
>
>
>
> Katie, could you specify why you went with -1? Pointing to someone else’s
> response is a reasonable way of doing that, it just helps us assess the
> reasoning people are using.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force
