Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Mark writes:

>  The concern is adequately addressed by deprecating (which I agree is the
correct approach) in the latest, and member approved, specification.

+1. Mark is 100% correct, the proper way forward is deprecation, and not
making the SC obsolete. This is indeed a well worn and common path for
other W3C Recommendations.

Off list, it has been suggested to me that this proposed change will not
have an impact on Section 508 or EN 301 549. It is important to remember
however that while those two legislations do drive a significant amount of
compliance behaviour, they are not the only external dependencies on WCAG
2.0/2.1 (ref: https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/). Have any of these other
legislated requirements been queried to see what (if any) impact this
proposed change might have to those other dependencies?

Additionally, what will the impact be on officially translated versions of
the Recommendation? (
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/translations/) Having an
English version of WCAG 2.0 that does not align with the Polish Version
<https://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG21-pl/> (for example) very much feels
like a problem simply waiting to happen.

What I do not see is a proposal for publishing a WCAG 2.0.1 / WCAG 2.1.1,
which I will argue both addresses the needs and concerns around this SC in
previously published versions of the Recommendation, while at the same time
having a minimal impact on previously published versions of the Rec. The
'dot-extension' mechanism is flexible enough to accommodate this way
forward, and it effectively and unambiguously delineates the two versions
of either WCAG 2.0 or WCAG 2.1

I remain adamant however that I WILL file a Formal Objection if this
Working Group continues to proceed with "overwriting" an existing
Recommendation.

Respectfully,

JF



On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:44 PM Hakkinen, Mark T <mhakkinen@ets.org> wrote:

> Agreeing with John and Chaals.
>
>
>
> Is there any precedent within W3C for changing an existing, versioned and
> published recommendation, agreed to previously in time by W3C membership?
> Is it an errata? Don’t think so.  The concern is adequately addressed by
> deprecating (which I agree is the correct approach) in the latest, and
> member approved, specification.  SC 4.1.1 appeared relevant to us at the
> time, it was approved, and remains part of WCAG’s history.  Deprecate and
> move on in subsequent versions.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From: *John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 3:20 PM
> *To: *Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> *Cc: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.*
>
> Like Chaals, I'm also likely to make a Formal Objection to substantively
> changing a previously published W3C Recommendation. That is why we went
> with the dot extension model: 2.2 WILL BE different than 2.1 just as 2.1
> was different than 2.0. Whether we like it or not, changing any of the WCAG
> versions after they have reached Rec Status may very well have knock-on
> impacts to legislated requirements around the world, and could have a
> detrimental (negative) reflection on the W3C writ large.
>
>
>
> Despite Wilco's flawed argument, if you are conformant today to ALL of the
> WCAG 2.1 SC, then the path to meeting 2.2 conformance is to simply meet the
> new SC requirements (putting aside whether you previously did or did not
> meet 4.1.1).
>
>
> I also struggle with invoking the term "Obsolete", and would much prefer
> to see "Deprecated" - the nuance is subtle but distinct.
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 3:01 PM Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Principal
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 8, 2023 12:59 PM
> *To:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> ⛔
>
> This is an external email.
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Friday Wed 15th at midday Boston time.
>
>
>
> The group has discussed what to do with 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 & 2.1
> now that it has been removed from WCAG 2.2.
>
>
>
> From the discussion:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2023/03/07-ag-minutes#item10
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2023%2F03%2F07-ag-minutes*item10__%3BIw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmfez9VGJw%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BpgSNsLNWoan0MMpMhykdOtKiwpi%2BZ%2FO0d1HFjiyvyE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Following the same approach as WCAG 2.2 was the preferred approach, where
> the SC text would be removed and replaced with a note that says why it has
> been removed.
>
>
>
> The specific changes are detailed in these two pull requests:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3093
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3093__%3B!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmdMiSXedg%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Dc3IcVKEtDoNcN3Qrmn7UZGAw1NH2r628%2FGJSrnuHSk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3094
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3094__%3B!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmcNvvv_-g%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uRxuptZeSVTF%2BSi5ANWPNTAH6JDNcgP4Wl8svIbIBAI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Survey results:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq23
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fwcag22-misc5%2Fresults*xq23__%3BIw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmewMpiCqg%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=R6V9q0sWNGbw0IWJITDyGWlKLO6tYxuolpmiiBkx99s%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> 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 live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Assuming the group agrees to this change, there is likely to be a public
> review before we can re-publish WCAG 2.0 & 2.1.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#last-call-review
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2FProcess-20211102%2F*last-call-review__%3BIw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmcpGrAkRg%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mjWLAtijjUxjfswpSIZbcwgsdFrKfUhVRZ7XOr7AR%2Bo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2Fwww.nomensa.com__%3B!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmfGTPcEDg%24&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8MisvXGtatsJL9voEZFfcnztYchSFEop7St19rZEGj4%3D&reserved=0>
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and
> intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any use, review, distribution, reproduction or
> any action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. If
> you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender
> and permanently delete all copies of the email and any attachments.
> Click here for translations of this disclaimer.
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.wiley.com%2Femail-disclaimers&data=05%7C01%7Cmhakkinen%40ets.org%7C8293865bc300409a8d3b08db201297f8%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C638139036468432882%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=edTrghDOjweQNT2Lt7BYF0khbYofSMyNPyetmPx8CTI%3D&reserved=0>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"