Re: Target size Pre-CFC

Thanks Rachael. If we republish to CR with the Target Size SC at Risk we still won’t be able to make substantive changes to that text in the next CR, we will only have the new option of removing that SC from WCAG 2.2 entirely.

I think today I was hearing greater support for changing the text than leaving it as it is in the current CR draft, but feel like we should be asking people specifically whether they can live with the current SC text as opposed to changing it and restarting CR. Maybe we’ve done that more than I think and I missed it…

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Director, Accessibility
Adobe

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



From: "Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L" <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:37 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Target size Pre-CFC


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


Andrew,

Thank you for asking that question. I should have covered it during the meeting.  Alastair or Michael, please feel free to correct anything below.

At this point we believe we will  need to restart CR as even moving focus appearance to AAA will cause us to restart and we have not been able to reach an agreement that is covered in our at risk options that will not raise objections.  At this point, we are trying to minimize the slip that will be caused by addressing the remaining normative text issues as efficiently as possible while following W3C procedure.

To that end, we are hoping everyone will review the proposed text Alastair sent out earlier based on today’s meeting.

He or I will be sending a CFC to restart CR with the revised text out later today or early tomorrow. My hope at least is that by including text that closely mimics what we have in the WCAG 2.2 draft now as at risk options, we will be able to test the proposed revisions while still publishing in June.

Kind regards,

Rachael



From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:27 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Target size Pre-CFC
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:25 PM


CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2FProcess-20211102%2F%23substantive-change&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0ac50f9d11224904fd7b08db2fc3e4ea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156290640630348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7VuoQoSTLoigGzSOautXA1fCJdnbhLP6MqfxEAfM7B0%3D&reserved=0>) 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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=05%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0ac50f9d11224904fd7b08db2fc3e4ea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156290640630348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b0xjgbptJNtD4SVXpztvZlXpfxyR1Yd6dHip0XxAPxU%3D&reserved=0>


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%7C0ac50f9d11224904fd7b08db2fc3e4ea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156290640630348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oVtGQO6wLixBQIxUIlU5AdKzQFXhE0INh2eKPmWpb5k%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%7C0ac50f9d11224904fd7b08db2fc3e4ea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156290640630348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Im0wiGk7TKbKk1I%2BmksBoFYeABk6LUGwyEQF8AMWvj0%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%7C0ac50f9d11224904fd7b08db2fc3e4ea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C638156290640786583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v4O7bRSozRkNR22NorOhGTd9yBK8pyuRQNc0rV0RBwM%3D&reserved=0>