Re: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0

Hi Patrick and Jon,

Trying to address the points you have raised.

The errata statement has meaning in as much as these would be considered mistakes that are intended to be addressed in future publications of the Recommendation. Ideally WCAG 2.0 would have been republished in the same way that 2.1 was. As Alastair points out, there are some significant challenges to this hence using the errata.

In the case of 4.1.1, however, the addition of the note in 2.1 is non-normative and the 2.0 errata flags the change as an editorial change to a non-normative aspect of the Recommendation. Based on this 2.1 and 2.0 are effectively the same in terms of clarifying the status of 4.1.1.

Thanks

Kevin

> On 18 Oct 2023, at 02:38, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> So I'm confused now ... does this sentence right at the top of WCAG 2.0 have no actual relevance/meaning then?
> 
> "Please refer to the errata <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/> for this document, which may include normative corrections."
> 
> P
> 
>> On 17 Oct 2023, at 14:17, Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> There was a substantial amount of discussion about how the change would affect backwards compatibility. The group did reach consensus that insisting on meeting 4.1.1 wasn't helpful, but failed to reach consensus on stating clearly that there is a technical incompatilibity - you can meet 2.2 without meeting 2.0 by not fulfilling the 2.0 requirements of SC 4.1.1 - even though the real world impact on accessibility is no longer relevant.
>> 
>> The reason we believe it makes no concrete difference is because for about a decade we have had standard handling for whatever code you find, widely deployed and part of normal tooling. 
>> 
>> Technically speaking, unless we change WCAG 2.0, some people might continue to insist on what amounts to a useful basic quality process as if it were the real problem it used to be of not being able to predict how content would be presented.
>> 
>> I suggest, our guidance should be "if you're still stuck on the WCAG 2.0 spec (despite a valuable replacement being publish 5 years ago, with its replacement in turn available now, you should probably stop insisting that you harm accessibility unless you meet 4.1.1. It's not bad to meet the requirement, it's just no longer an accessibility issue if you don't".
>> 
>> Formally updating WCAG 2.0 to note that the requirement can be considered as met, since browsers now fix the problem, or some such procedure, would be vaguely useful. Understanding the difference in uncertainty between "we changed stuff between last week and this week", and "things have changed over the 18 years since WCAG 2.0 was published" is important - regulators need guidance that includes recognising that rulemaking like it's 1999 can be counter-productive when conditions fundamentally change.
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 19:52:39 (+02:00), Jon Avila wrote:
>> 
>>> Based on Chaals feedback, that the errata have no official standing for 2.0 then it would seem that WCAG 2.2 is no longer backwards compatible?  This is something that I don't think was clearly communicated when we discussed this previously in the working group meetings.
>>> 
>>> Regulators and the industry need clear, specific, and consistent guidance on treatment of this as without it people will be held to different standards which causes confusion.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:26 AM
>>> To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>; Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: SC 4.1.1 and WCAG 2.0
>>> 
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alistair wrote
>>> 
>>> "Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case."
>>> 
>>> I don't think that's quite true.
>>> 
>>> The W3C Recommendation is the published document. Republishing updates that to incorporate errata. Until then, the errata are a working group note saying what they got wrong. Or perhaps just what some people think is wrong - there's no specific requirement on errata because they have no official standing.
>>> 
>>> Publishing updates to Recommendations for errata isn't typically a massive amount of work, although it isn't done that often.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> 
>>> Chaals
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 00:32:37 (+02:00), Alastair Campbell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>> 
>>>> Mary-Jo is obviously best placed to talk about the ACRs, on the spec side:
>>>> 
>>>>> Was it because we couldn't spin up an update/republication of 2.0.
>>>> 
>>>> Essentially yes, it is theoretically possible to update but it would involve a huge amount of work.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> If so, does the mention in the errata supersede the main spec text
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, in effect you have to imagine the errata are in place in the main spec.
>>>> 
>>>> Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>> -Alastair
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
>>> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
>> Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
>>