Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Agreed Gregg!

On Thursday, 9 March 2023, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
wrote:

> I was talking about 2.0 and 2.1
>
> That statement is true for all versions of WCAG.
>
> The provision was put in to solve a problem that existed back then for
> screen readers.
>
> This is not longer a problem for screen readers - or any AT.
>
> So whether you are applying the old Standard or the New one — the
> provision has no value of any kind to people with disabilities.
> It only creates a bunch of work — for not benefit at all.
>
> So people need to understand that—and stop worrying about it.
>
> You can even argue that - since it is taken care of by new technology —
> the provisions is automatically met - even if the code at the bottom (the
> html) is missing the tags. By the time any AT sees the code - there is no
> problem. The 'tree' is there and the AT can't even see the underlying
> code.
>
>
> If you want — you can think of this like you think of Wordpress. What the
> user sees is not what is stored. Wordpress takes the data and creates a
> page on the fly that is presented to the user. The author does not create
> the page - just the instruction for word press to create the page. And if
> they make little mistakes - Wordpress often can fix them before the user
> sees it. This is the same except the repair is done in the browser before
> the tree is presented to the AT.
>
> In any case — that provision needs to be eliminated from anyones concern
> and certainly from anyone doing evaluation for 'repair' of problems that
> are not problems.
>
>
> gregg
>
> ———————————
> Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
> Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
> Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor. org
> <http://raisingthefloor.org>
> The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net
> The Morphic project   https://morphic.org
>
> On Mar 8, 2023, at 4:21 PM, matt.garrish@gmail.com 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?
>
> Will WCAG 2.0 have to become “WCAG 2.0 (Second Edition)” because of the
> change, for example, along the lines of the in-place changes made to XML
> 1.0? That would make it clearer that a change has happened but doesn't
> address the ISO question.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of this ccc without more info about the process.
>
> Matt
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* March 8, 2023 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:* Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/2023/03/07-ag-minutes*item10__;Iw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmfez9VGJw$>
>
>
>
> Following the same approach as WCAG 2.2 was the preferred approach, where
> the SC text would be removed and replaced with a note that says why it has
> been removed.
>
>
>
> The specific changes are detailed in these two pull requests:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3093
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3093__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmdMiSXedg$>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3094
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3094__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmcNvvv_-g$>
>
>
>
> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-
> misc5/results#xq23
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results*xq23__;Iw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmewMpiCqg$>
>
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/*last-call-review__;Iw!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmcpGrAkRg$>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.nomensa.com__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!ugTba4q53qozcGQqEMEEyasXd33losP4RZNX-n0rUudD53Ypjem-rTaYQTM6JowML9H_10C7jmfGTPcEDg$>
> ------------------------------
> 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://secure.wiley.com/email-disclaimers>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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"
>
>
>