4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Hi Wilco,

Not everything has to go through a survey, and in the previous thread I’d explicitly said it would go to CFC: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0295.html


The “SC” we can editorially update (done). Could you clarify you concern with the CFC please?

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 13:09
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: 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
Hey Alastair,

-1

We very much should have surveyed this first. There is a lot of nuance in here that we need to get right. For starters, I do not think success criteria should be abbreviated as "SC" in public documents.



On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:36 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday 28th March at 1PM Boston time.

Following from a previous CFC which did not pass:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0201.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0201.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C9cd008e877e14527c9c508db2b9fde8e%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151737856035002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m86S15Qse5VTY%2BA9o%2Fg7km%2BNQa56yqanc5z94q%2BbmaY%3D&reserved=0>

We discussed an alternative:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0282.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2023JanMar%2F0282.html&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C9cd008e877e14527c9c508db2b9fde8e%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151737856035002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AsYjT9Wdqlut%2F%2BYpkBeWsD6BwXVLs2AQNyHLSdVEX1s%3D&reserved=0>

That alternative appears to have support (including from those objecting to the previous CFC).

The change has been implemented here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3116<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3116&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C9cd008e877e14527c9c508db2b9fde8e%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151737856035002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=028pz9hnnIA3NYkTMgUpBzNOX%2FvalPj%2Fv%2FNoxpZSaNk%3D&reserved=0>

It adds the proposed note to the SC text, and updates the understanding document. The understanding document states that it has been removed from 2.2 but remains in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 with a note (and replicates the note there).

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.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C9cd008e877e14527c9c508db2b9fde8e%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151737856035002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J4%2FUDTFIn4ZqPrqMCvvGhfRgNvxlbhoFUY3%2BFuZJcuw%3D&reserved=0>




--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator ACT Task Force
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]