RE: Republish of WCAG 2.1 - Flash note

+1 for the editorial, and good catch on substituting a date for the word “new”.


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Republish of WCAG 2.1 - Flash note

Hi Gundula,

(Changing the subject line to create a separate thread.)

That is the text we previously agreed, and it was intended to be an errata to 2.1 as well (subject to the CFC).

Technically it is correct in terms of timing, however, I can see the irritation.

I wonder if we could (editorially) make it a bit more generic, e.g. “The working definition in the field for "pair of opposing transitions involving a saturated red" (as of 2022) is…“

Would that resolve it for you?

Can anyone spot why that would be an issue to update? (Apart from timing.)

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com<mailto:gundula.niemann@sap.com>>
Date: Monday, 31 July 2023 at 15:20
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Republish of WCAG 2.1
Hello,

I am irritated on the following text and would like to ask for a crosscheck:

In the definition of
general flash and red flash thresholds
it says in the third note:
The  new  working definition in the field for "pair of opposing transitions involving a saturated red" (from WCAG 2.2)  is a pair of opposing transitions  where,  one transition is  either to  or  from a state with a value R/(R +  G + B)  that is greater than or equal to  0.8, and the  difference between states  is  more than 0.2 (unitless)  in  the CIE 1976 UCS chromaticity diagram.  [  ISO_9241-391  <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2FWCAG-2.1-catchup%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html#bib-iso_9241-391> ]

Question: Is it intentional to refer to WCAG 2.2 here?

Best regards,
Gundula

----------
Dr. Gundula Niemann
SAP PE UX Accessibility
SAP SE





From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Dienstag, 25. Juli 2023 11:01
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC - Republish of WCAG 2.1
Importance: High


Call For Consensus — ends Monday July 31st at midday Boston time.



This call is to re-publish WCAG 2.1 to include all the errata since it was originally published in 2018.



There are various editorial updates (errata) to WCAG 2.1 that are not immediately visible to people looking at the main TR location: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/




Republishing would make these updates available in the default location.



The changes from the current published version are highlighted in this version:

https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2FWCAG-2.1-catchup%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html




Notable updates include the note for Parsing and updates to the red-flash definition.



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<http://www.nomensa.com/>