Re: WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata pre-CFC

Hey Alastair,
Thanks for sending a head up on this. I'm generally not in favor of erratas
for all the problems it creates down stream, but this is clearly the
direction the group wants to go so I won't object on that ground. I do have
a few questions and concerns about the proposed changes though that I'd
like to see get addressed.

*New single-pointer definition*
This new definition seems to exclude path-based gestures from the
single-pointer input. That creates a contradiction with 2.5.1. 2.5.1
explicitly says a path-based single-pointer gesture is allowed if it is
essential. If single-pointer input is not path based, how can it be
allowed? The second problem with it is it changes the scope of 2.5.2. If
path-based gestures are not considered a single-pointer input, then using a
path-based gesture on a down event with no way to abort or undo the action
is now allowed. It makes this SC 2.5.2 more permissive than it used to be.

*Linking to definitions*
Several of the added use of the "text" definition seems wrong to me. The
biggest problem is linking images of text to text. The a WCAG "text" is
programmatically determined, whereas images of text seems to be explicitly
for text that is not programmatically determined. That's a contradiction.
Several of the other new uses of the definition of "text" also seem to
change the success criteria in incorrect ways. The change of 3.3.1 Error
identification seems to suggest an image of text are no longer allowed,
even if all requirements of 1.4.5 Images of text are met. For 3.1.5 the
change seems to suggest that images of text are exempt from the success
criterion. And for 1.4.8 it would seem that justified text actually is
allowed in images.

The PR is also adding links to a "block of text" definition. Those seem
fine, except that the link probably won't work because the real definition
is "blocks of text" (plural). Are we sure that works? Skimming over the
ReSpec code it seems to use an NPM package called pluralize, which can only
do single words. Can someone confirm they checked that this?

*tablets...mobile devices*
No blocker, but I don't think the "including ..." should be in brackets.

*Updating a “WCAG 2.1” reference to “WCAG 2”*
The title of this item and the PR don't seem to match. Is this the correct
link?
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3707/files

*Input Purposes list to remove transaction-amount*
This change seems to me like it's losing sight of the original intent of
the criterion. Sure you wouldn't autocomplete a transaction-amount field
since this is going to be different for different transactions. But this
success criterion isn't about autocompleting form fields. Its about
allowing personalization. There are very good reasons why people may want
an extension that adds a custom icon, label or style to a field where you
enter how much money you are going to give to someone else. To me this
seems like one of the most important items on the input purpose list.
Removing it feels problematic to me.


On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:16 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> There are a few minor normative (errata) updates to WCAG 2.1/2.2 which we
> would like to make, and re-publish so they are on the face of the specs.
>
>
>
> The list is below. If you disagree with this grouping approach, or this
> way of reviewing the updates please respond to this email before we get to
> CFC next week.
>
>
>
> All of these are things the group has reviewed and approved individually,
> so the forthcoming CFC is to check the group is happy to publish these in
> 2.1 and 2.2.
>
>
>
> Few would apply to WCAG 2.0 so we aren’t proposing to add errata for 2.0.
>
>
>
> Applying to 2.2:
>
>
>
>    - Make "cognitive function test" definition term lowercase, aligning
>    with other terms. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3943/files
>    - Update to the focus-appearance note, aligning with the final text.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3657/files
>    - Updating the ‘new’ markers in 2.2.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1481/files
>    - Removing the un-used definition for encloses.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3636/files
>    - Editorial updates to the target-size (min) SC text.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3189/files
>    - Missing comma in introduction.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3938/files
>
>
>
> Applying to 2.1 and 2.2:
>
>    - Updating the definition of single-pointer, separating the a note off
>    for clarification.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536/files
>    - Linking up various definitions where they have not been linked
>    before (caught as part of the WCAG2ICT work).
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files
>    - Change "tablets...mobile devices" to a better structure without
>    suggesting tablets are not mobile devices (small update to the
>    introduction).
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files
>    - Changing <ol> to <ul> when no order is intended.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3756/files
>    - Updating the style of the input purposes for syntax highlighting.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3380/files
>    - Updating the programmatically determined link-text definition to
>    disambiguate lists and list-items.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3362/files
>    - Updating a “WCAG 2.1” reference to “WCAG 2”, so it works in both.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3707/files
>    - Update Input Purposes list to remove transaction-amount.
>    https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539/files
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force