Re: WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata pre-CFC

HI Wilco,

Thanks for looking through.

For the single-pointer definition I’ll get some feedback from the TF. There wasn’t an intent to change the scope, let’s see what they say:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536

For the images of text definition links, I assume you mean this bit:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files#diff-5992e3ead3ec31ca61641bf8fa29895aa0dce67d9d6408168124cbec88575672


I thought that was appropriate because it added the definition to the top part (which is “_text_ that has been rendered in a non-text form”).
And it took away the current link from “text that is part of a picture that contains significant other visual content.”, which appears to align with your argument?

For error identification:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files#diff-b9e2005d006c77d296e7e6a40d722a6ff1281ef5df93355821be06214554717c

I had always interpreted that as text, not an image of text, even without the definition link. It probably hasn’t come up for me as an image of text  would fail the 1.4.5 SC anyway (I can’t think of a reasonable instance which would fall into the exceptions), and I don’t recall anyone trying!

For 3.1.5 Reading Level, again, I think it depends on whether you think adding the link changes the meaning. I had not, so whether it was linked or not, I’d read that as (non-image) text.

The data-lt attribute is used to add singular or pluralised versions (which even the main text isn’t), so this should work:
<dfn … data-lt="block of text">blocks of text</dfn>
If it doesn’t match, I think it will get an obvious read underline.

Re #3707, yes, the only change is in the last line from “WCAG 2.1” to “WCAG 2”.

Input purpose: I agree that customisation is part of the intent, but the thinking was that it isn’t “about the user”, which is how the SC is framed. That is a key aspect when defining which inputs are in or out of scope. For example, some inputs which ask for a name may not be about the user, so wouldn’t be in scope. If that is how the SC is scoped, then transaction amount doesn’t fit in.

I’ve moved two of the PRs into the ‘for discussion’ column in the project board<https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1>.

Kind regards,

-Alastair



From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 12:02
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<http://www.nomensa.com/>



--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator ACT Task Force
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]