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

Hi John,

>  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.

I’m not saying it does address those completely, I’m saying the alternative is to not address them in WCAG 2.0/2.1 at all. It is clear we will not get consensus for a normative change to 2.0/2.1 on this topic.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 12:37 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto: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<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%7Ca98488d41d324301f01208db2bc0ae65%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151878795665692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pBjUaMa1bev8cJq%2FeLLDsgypdEmNYZYyLCGZHosWBig%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%7Ca98488d41d324301f01208db2bc0ae65%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151878795665692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Lay61pHhd0auLqytdY%2FzsU31NpxlyeVLO2TW6OLZF9U%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%7Ca98488d41d324301f01208db2bc0ae65%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151878795665692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qSxYs1Ps77GN46yFgN8zykbYTUwPljTHvYJxTqIsuLM%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%7Ca98488d41d324301f01208db2bc0ae65%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638151878795665692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2CIf6O6ImYj4Inb002fyLCzANGkG5S5d4wc2OyxPvYU%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"