Re: CFC - 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

+1


To respond somewhat to John's concerns, I don't think anything we can do will fix all the tools and processes out there (although they will mostly change over time).


But providing the note will give people clear support to say that a claim someone *can* fail the criterion is wrong in nearly all circumstances, according to the clarification issued by the working group. I think that's a reasonable situation, and that going further with the discussion is not likely to improve anything.


cheers

On Thursday, 23 March 2023 16:17:25 (+01:00), John Foliot wrote:


-1







While adding a non-normative note to the Recommendations does indeed "convey the intent of the group (ignore this SC)" I fail to see how it addresses two critical points of the problem statement: drive-by conformance abuses and the addition of "busy work", in part due to Section 5.2 Conformance. 

Unless conformance checking tools have an option to "toggle" 4.1.1 testing on or off, those drive-by abusers will still be getting "reports" that shows 4.1.1 normatively failing (even though it "shouldn't"), and dev teams will still be receiving similar "reports" that there are (or may be) conformance issues related SC 4.1.1. 

Will the addition of this note spark that ability to toggle 4.1.1 testing on or off with all of the conformance checkers out there? My suspicion is that to get that  kind of industry change across the board will require a normative change to the existing Recommendations, which introduces other concerns previously brought forward.

JF


On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:35 AM Alastair Campbell <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

 

We discussed an alternative:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0282.html

 

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

 

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

 

 





--

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"

-- 
Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc