Re: WCAG 2.x Editorial updates

Hi everyone,

> Errmm... isn't that the other way around? That *<ul>* is used when no order is intended?

If you notice this kind of thing (from the brief description I copied from the thread), it’s worth clicking through to check.

Ideally that would when the email goes around the first week, rather than after merging. Some folks did, and commented in the github threads, which prompted updates.

No harm in raising things anytime, it’s just smoother if feedback is pre-merge.

Thanks,

-Alastair




From: John Foliot
Alastair writes:
>  <ol> used instead of <ul> when no order is intended/necessary

Errmm... isn't that the other way around? That *<ul>* is used when no order is intended? (It may just be the way this was written, but noting it just in case...)

JF

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:21 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

These have been merged.

From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 15:22
To: WCAG list
Subject: WCAG 2.x Editorial updates
Hi everyone,

A while back we discussed doing asynchronous approvals of minor changes to the informative WCAG 2.x documents.

We’ll refine this process when the new Task Force is started, but in the meantime, I thought we could beta-test this process.

This is a short list of a few backlog items:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AAsync-Approval+


If any of these appear to create problems, or you think should not be merged: Please reply in the github thread or to this email by the 30th August.
+1s are not required for this type of (largely editorial) changes to informative documents. We will default to merging unless problems are spotted.

If you don’t respond by then we will merge it, but if you later spot/discover a problem, that’s ok, we can do a similar update in future.

Overview of PRs / Changes

Reformat definition lists, ordered lists, fix Reading Level understanding<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3296> #3296

  *   seems back in the WCAG 2.0 days, definition lists weren't used. This retrospectively fixes it
  *   <ol> used instead of <ul> when no order is intended/necessary
  *   fix the completely broken listing of education levels for Reading Level understanding

Tweak 2.4.6 Headings and Labels understanding<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3295> #3295
Remove incorrect suggestion that headings/labels should make sense out of context, reformat lists (particularly what seemed to be a definition list, but marked up with <strong>?)

Follow-up changes to 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 understanding documents<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3216> #3216

  *   corrects a mistake where the text about focus/hover in 1.4.6 understanding talks about 1.4.3 applying also to focus/hover, when it actually means to say that THIS SC applies here as well. this PR now generalises that text to just say "This Success Criterion"
  *   adds a <code> block that was missed out for the contrast formula
  *   reformats the contrast formula rationale part for enhanced contrast, to bring it in line with the same text in the minimum contrast understanding
  *   tweaks the rationale to mention 1.4.6 in relation to 7:1 ratio


Update text alternative for target size (minimum) understanding illustrations<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3190> #3190

  *   corrects the incomplete alt for the target-spacing-toolbar example
  *   expands the alt for a few of the following illustrations

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

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



--
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"