Re: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0

Hi Patrick,

I can’t speak to why WCAG 2.0 didn’t republish, but the 4.1.1 Parsing change is noted in the errata.

As for how to report in an ACR, ITI is in process of updating the VPAT (I’m the chair of the VPAT ad-hoc committee) which will publish in a few weeks. Note that we’re at the mercy of the ITI web developers for pushing the changes out. Yes, one should answer 4.1.1 Parsing in the ACR with “Supports”.  There is also a comment we \ developed since WCAG 2.0 is used in 508 and WCAG 2.1 is used in the EN 301 549. The comment points to the errata.  Here’s the currently drafted comment:

For WCAG 2.0, 2.1, EN 301 549, and Revised 508 Standards, the September 2023 errata update indicates this criterion is always supported. See the WCAG 2.0 Editorial Errata<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/#editorial> and the WCAG 2.1 Editorial Errata<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/errata/#editorial>.

Best regards,

Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager


From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 11:29 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0
Hey folx,

I know this was discussed back and forth ad nauseam, but I've lost track
of the final decisions...

I'm wondering:

* in WCAG 2.1 the note about 4.1.1 being effectively deprecated is
included in the main spec, as a normative note for 4.1.1
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#parsing

* in WCAG 2.0 the main spec has not been changed
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat-parses  - the fact that 4.1.1
is deprecated is only mentioned separately in the understanding
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-parses.html  and
the errata https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/

Is there a particular reason why the main 2.0 spec itself doesn't have
the note? Was it because we couldn't spin up an update/republication of
2.0. If so, does the mention in the errata supersede the main spec text
(I assume so, since it says that it "may include normative corrections"
at the start of the spec), and if so is that clear enough?

If somebody's is filling in an ACR, should they simply mark 4.1.1 as
"Supports" (keeping in mind that 508 still references WCAG 2.0)? Again,
I assume so, but will likely need to add some info in the "Notes" column
in the ACR to reiterate that this is based on the erratum for 4.1.1.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/  | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/  | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke  | skype: patrick_h_lauke