Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 - the alternative

Hi Alastair,

>  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.

JF

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 12:37 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> For context, we tried for a normative change and couldn’t get consensus.
>
>
>
> The result of this not passing means: no change to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1.
>
>
>
> (We can update informative docs, but this is specifically for adding a
> note under the SC text.)
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *John Foliot
>
> -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
> <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%7C4ba18199b1934b0360ce08db2bb1c131%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151814682774491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FnviGUhUW6kKQWTTvBsrYaw81HdsF4GBodYjDdAmvWA%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%7C4ba18199b1934b0360ce08db2bb1c131%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151814682774491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5BXeVQ9yRG%2BXvL2kQOiMcnBvihHU%2ByFOC%2FIXAEObwVM%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%7C4ba18199b1934b0360ce08db2bb1c131%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151814682774491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SzeE0TUENo2ml0iWwDk8A5Rtt6WRLDZoHlj5n00QRac%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%7C4ba18199b1934b0360ce08db2bb1c131%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151814682774491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HhqQI8cOn29fkipnx72i3qpb8m%2BylZmYTHn1FTCtV6A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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"
>


-- 
*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"