Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

A link to a previous version doesn’t need to indicate that it is outdated. That is done in the previous link in WCAG 2.0 today because the previous version (which is the PR version) is outdated.

Also, even if the WG indicated that WCAG 2.0 from Dec 2008 was outdated, does that matter? If Section 508 uses that version, it is still published on the site. We would want people to know that there is a more current version, so this type of message isn’t affecting any ability to use the standard, just indicating that it isn’t the most current.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Director, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk



From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:16 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1


EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.


Andrew,

> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG20%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842556460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mAWllVA3LhrlJ2QBZBcGgv6%2BLJMJFMk35LVGjFmmavc%3D&reserved=0> is just a pointer to the most recent version.

Sure, but for some (many?) the "most recent version" is not the one they would be held accountable to. It's not just "the most recent", it is also a *different* version. Currently, when you go to https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG20%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842556460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mAWllVA3LhrlJ2QBZBcGgv6%2BLJMJFMk35LVGjFmmavc%3D&reserved=0> and then follow the link to Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-WCAG20-20081103/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FPR-WCAG20-20081103%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f4oWbhx1TR3X%2BP%2F4UyNi2UhcHvHpvOgvF8dtoRpn%2BtY%3D&reserved=0>, users are advised that "This version is outdated".

[cid:image001.png@01D95343.CFF11DA0]
(screen capture of the current warning message outputted)

We cannot (I assert) say that to a normative modification to 2.0/2.1 because the versions that still include the requirement to meet 4.1.1 cannot be outdated due to the knock-on impact I previously noted: the known list of Policies<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2Fpolicies%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VTfMah2lfeaIzCYbdqJPM7C1mbrhlY9ePqa91%2BGvOlA%3D&reserved=0> (above and beyond 508 / EN) potentially impacted, the list of official W3C translations<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2Fstandards-guidelines%2Fwcag%2Ftranslations%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b6ffhLtT9SDqlYEb90PQvDU5CmMNvCFknXEogMhRSYY%3D&reserved=0> of either of those versions of WCAG, as well as noting the likely references in external policies, print publications, and tooling.

For this reason, I assert that normative changes to 2.0 and 2.1 are creating NEW Recommendations after the fact. We can *encourage* organizations to adopt and use the New versions, but because we alone cannot compel them to do so, we must leave both options available as fully articulated and VALID Recommendations (even if we know that one version is "bad") - it's not either / or, its 'both' - simultaneously.

JF

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:13 AM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
Just one point to add, John:

This particular question is actually at the root of my current concern and "CANNOT LIVE WITH" stance; If we "republish" 2.0 / 2.1 with normative changes, then it is no longer .../TR/WCAG20 or .../TR/WCAG21, the revisions are normatively different (and thus, I propose .../TR/WCAG201 & .../TR/WCAG211 respectively).

As I’m sure you know but will point out for others, the official URI for WCAG 2.0 is http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FREC-WCAG20-20081211%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Zef713FN3gB3D9%2Fd4tK9RkRc5FFcgyXF2HLBZCziP64%3D&reserved=0> and https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG20%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BZc9UWq5ugQxH7bfa2O9mc%2FP0%2BkvadON2cGcUsuLg%2BI%3D&reserved=0> is just a pointer to the most recent version. Similarly for https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2018%2FREC-WCAG21-20180605%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o%2BB44xeeF7DXoZcKJOZYScTVcnDlR1Wmy%2FjbkppZEw8%3D&reserved=0> and https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lPqv%2FkwXZLtWEICI7Fus1VsHeql3S8mrFCOa%2BnmD6B0%3D&reserved=0>. So there definitely would be a different date version, but the group would need to decide about using the existing pointer or not.

Now, as one example, Section 508 references WCAG using the pointer URI, but clarifies that it is the Dec 11 2008 version (see https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#702.10.1<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.access-board.gov%2Fict%2F%23702.10.1&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc7da9eb4e1d54492100b08db2182c96b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638140617842712692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tCucUSRVYdh6fOSfvW63SoQfyrQ1pwQVay5BiKKVKj8%3D&reserved=0>).

AWK


--
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"