- From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 12:36:48 +0000
- To: Jon Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1678882573454.3165425698.759974128@consensys.net>
We can decide whatever we reach agreement on, but I would predict that trying to move it to level AAA in old specs would create more disagreement not less - I imagine those like me who don't want to change the existing specs would object, but so would others who would be OK with re-writing the original specs. cheers On Thursday, 9 March 2023 17:16:15 (+01:00), Jon Avila wrote: Could SC 4.1.1 be moved to level AAA in a WCAG 2.0 second edition? Jonathan From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 6:23 AM To: Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Hi Shadi, I should probably clarify that I don’t have strong feelings about this, I’m presenting arguments that have come up during the discussions. The CFC has obviously gone to a wider audience, so I’m trying to make sure they are considered by people who weren’t there to hear them. When we were discussing the removal from 2.2 we looked at the option of having a note basically saying “you don’t have to do this”, a depreciation option. But that isn’t enough as section 5.2.1 says: “For Level A conformance (the minimum level of conformance), the Web page satisfies all the Level A Success Criteria” I think we’d need to mark the SC in some way (e.g. “obsolete”), and then say “all the Level A Success Criteria not marked as obsolete”. Or something to that effect. But it is odd, and confusing as to whether it is required or not. We had to decide the point about whether it should be required, and then tried not to fudge the messaging. Removal was the straightforward way of doing that. I think there will still be concerns about this approach not being enough to deal with points 1 & 3 (below), but I’ll let others speak to that. Kind regards, -Alastair From: Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at> Date: Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 10:24 To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: RE: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 Hi Alastair, Thank you for this clarification. I’d argue that this option does address points 1, 3, and 5: “The SC is being actively abused now (e.g. drive-by validation), and causes the most wasted work of all the SCs. Changing only WCAG 2.2 doesn’t help with that.” – by adding the note, we clarify that the SC is no longer required for conformance. “There has been wide misinterpretation of the SC’s intent. If we don’t remove it, we should update the understanding document (potentially the SC text via errata) to clarify that, and people will realise it now achieves nothing except ‘busy work’.” – we should update the understanding document in any case, adding the note doesn’t stop us from doing that. “Some organisations are already ignoring the SC now, requiring customers/clients to justify changes based on user-impact rather than lack of conformance.” – the note helps these organizations make the conformance justification too. Best, Shadi --- Shadi Abou-Zahra Amazon Devices and Services Principal Accessibility Standards and Policy Manager --- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> Sent: Thursday, 9 March, 2023 11:03 AM To: Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Shadi, There was mild support for that option, but the path of least objections (from those filling in the survey and involved in the discussions) has been the removal option. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq23 I think the reasons were that it didn’t tackle points 1, 3 & 5 from my email (now numbered below). Kind regards, -Alastair From: Abou-Zahra, Shadi Hi Alastair, Do you know the level of support or objections to the option “We try to compromise by not removing the SC text, but including a note that says it is not required anymore”? It seems to address all requirements. Best, Shadi --- Shadi Abou-Zahra Amazon Devices and Services Principal Accessibility Standards and Policy Manager --- From: Alastair Campbell Hi Charles, (Taking this off the CFC thread.) Wilco’s response in the survey was just one of the arguments, there have been others during previous discussions. I’ll try and gather those here: The SC is being actively abused now (e.g. drive-by validation), and causes the most wasted work of all the SCs. Changing only WCAG 2.2 doesn’t help with that. Removing the SC doesn’t change the underlying accessibility requirements. We’ve mapped those to other WCAG 2.0 SCs. (And that’s a useful understanding doc addition we can make). There has been wide misinterpretation of the SC’s intent. If we don’t remove it, we should update the understanding document (potentially the SC text via errata) to clarify that, and people will realise it now achieves nothing except ‘busy work’. If we don’t make this change to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, we will have objections to removing it from WCAG 2.2. (That is one, I’m aware of another potential member objection.) Some organisations are already ignoring the SC now, requiring customers/clients to justify changes based on user-impact rather than lack of conformance. For most people, it is simply less to do. Even from folks involved in regulations, their reaction has been (paraphrasing): People building/testing to 2.0 may continue to do something they don’t need to, people checking will be pleasantly surprised there is one less thing to do. Chair-hat off to add my own observation: There is a difference between WCAG and other W3C specs: If people stop using a CSS feature, it doesn’t particularly matter if it is still included in the spec, it doesn’t create work for authors. If a defunct SC remains in a spec, it creates work for thousands (millions?) of authors and testers around the world. If we had an accessibility priority of constituencies, I think we’d put that work over spec purity. Chair-hat on to look at ways forward, I can see several paths: This CFC passes; We try to compromise by not removing the SC text, but including a note that says it is not required anymore. We don’t align it with 2.2 but update it to make clear it doesn’t include the ‘content model’. Kind regards, -Alastair From: Chaals Nevile This isn't really a new argument. It is about procedure and W3C process, not the technical merits (which I don't think are in much dispute). I'm likely to object, including as an AC rep making a formal objection to substantively changing a previously published versioned recommendation. Wilco's reasoning, that doing so makes WCAG 2.2 compatible with WCAG 2.0/2.1 fails to convince me. What it does do is mean that earlier claims of non-conformance to WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 are no longer valid. It also means that any organisation who are using WCAG 2.0/2.1 now, for whatever reason, need to understand that the promise underpinning a W3C Recommendation is being broken. That seems a far more serious issue than removing he promise that WCAG 2.2 will be backwards compatible, and one that affects every W3C Recommendation and so most W3C Working Groups. I am unlikely to decide I "can live with" this. If you want an HTML-style specification that changes when you feel like it, then make one, instead of a W3C Recommendation. cheers Chaals On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 18:58:40 (+01:00), Alastair Campbell wrote: 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 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://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3094 Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq23 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 Kind regards, -Alastair -- @alastc / www.nomensa.com -- Charles 'Chaals' Nevile Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc Amazon Development Center Austria GmbH Brueckenkopfgasse 1 8020 Graz Oesterreich Sitz in Graz Firmenbuchnummer: FN 439453 f Firmenbuchgericht: Landesgericht fuer Zivilrechtssachen Graz Amazon Development Center Austria GmbH Brueckenkopfgasse 1 8020 Graz Oesterreich Sitz in Graz Firmenbuchnummer: FN 439453 f Firmenbuchgericht: Landesgericht fuer Zivilrechtssachen Graz -- Charles 'Chaals' Nevile Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2023 12:37:09 UTC