Re: Target size Pre-CFC

Alastair,
It would help me (and possibly others) to hear what the current thinking and options are for WCAG 2.2’s CR.

Focus appearance (and its associated glossary items) is the only item marked as “at risk” in the Jan 25 2023 CR, so I believe that we are not able to make substantive changes (https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#substantive-change) during CR (but are allowed to make non-substantive/editorial changes).

Are the chairs thinking that were are going to repeat CR for WCAG 2.2, or is the outcome of this decision regarding Target size one of the factors that will make that decision for us?

The group will edit individual SC forever if allowed (including myself in that!) but I’m not sure if everyone is aware of the process requirements that will extend the overall WCAG 2.2 timeline if we make substantive changes to the CR.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Director, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk



From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:40 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Target size Pre-CFC
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:39 PM


EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.


Hi everyone,

We discussed updates to Target size today based on the previous survey, PR, and discussion.

Those were captured in this google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N38qrHOJSXW-OrJI7GiSjQwaYZxh5OBDJ36No7p2Ax4/edit#<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1N38qrHOJSXW-OrJI7GiSjQwaYZxh5OBDJ36No7p2Ax4%2Fedit%23&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc3314c94944e412ca1cf08db2fbbe9ba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156256356976022%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AlVl30f4qBfB%2BkyRrqjQCJ8KDN28enGa4YWR7KiKcrE%3D&reserved=0>

And implemented in this PR:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files#diff-a30d6476d02e45a066c55e8e174fe5381088cb0a3862e9c2e4eb3bbdf695c007<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3123%2Ffiles%23diff-a30d6476d02e45a066c55e8e174fe5381088cb0a3862e9c2e4eb3bbdf695c007&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc3314c94944e412ca1cf08db2fbbe9ba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156256356976022%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5AOsEI6NCGNm74OFPe0oNLH4L7WJNj8IjCq8wGqLsKI%3D&reserved=0>

Specifically:

  *   Remove the ‘lists’ from the inline exemption.
  *   Update the spacing exception to use the ‘circles’ method.

The plan discussed in the meeting was to put this SC “at risk”, with the proposed text being our preference, but if problems are found with that during review, we fall-back to the current SC text.

This email is to check for objections before we go to CFC. So, any objections to that approach & content?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc3314c94944e412ca1cf08db2fbbe9ba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156256356976022%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=34mm5xDe23563clt2SlzELNpBhMQozsPMIQRc0oG%2FyQ%3D&reserved=0>