- From: Helen Burge <hburgeassltd@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:42:05 +0000
- To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALaZbi-+H=AMYNfoj58_QBxBghRLNTMs7-8HZQNXT3b2a5g_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that the objections raised should be addressed/answered so -1 to the proposal. Regards, Helen On Thu 7 Nov 2024 at 11:00, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > Hey Alastair, > > > There is some discussion going on for the input-purpose update. > Currently we have quite a few +1s on the whole, and a single -1 on specific > aspects. If others express objections (-1s) based on the input-purpose > aspect alone, we can remove that part and consider it consensus. > > Would you mind clarifying this? Looking at the definition of consensus > <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#def-Consensus>, it says as having > "no sustained objection". I am objecting, how can there be consensus? The > group can't ignore an objection, just because there is only one of them. > The next step <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#managing-dissent> is > to consider the concerns, and work out if there is another proposal > possible that results in weaker, or no objections. The next step aught to > be to poll the group on this errata without the change. > > Thanks, > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:38 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> As an update, I’ve asked the WCAG 2.x TF facilitators to check the >> minutes / discussions on the first two items. >> >> >> >> The “text” definition in “blocks of text” was an oversight and has been >> reverted. >> >> >> >> There is some discussion going on for the input-purpose update. >> Currently we have quite a few +1s on the whole, and a single -1 on specific >> aspects. >> >> >> >> If others express objections (-1s) based on the input-purpose aspect >> alone, we can remove that part and consider it consensus. >> >> If there are no other objections we can “pass with an objection”. >> >> >> >> I encourage anyone who isn’t sure how to respond to check the github >> conversation (link above) to understand the different points of view. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> @alastc / www.nomensa.com >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Wilco Fiers >> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 November 2024 at 13:27 >> >> Hey Alastair, >> >> There was no group decision recorded on the following: >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files#r1751701618 >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539#pullrequestreview-2292988933 >> >> I can live with most of the changes provided the group at least >> considered the suggestions/question. If these things were discussed and the >> TF, I ask that someone just leave a comment with the TF resolution in it. >> That way I know the status, and if I have further comments I can provide >> them. >> >> The two topics I will stand my ground on are not adding the "text" >> definition to "blocks of text" ( >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files#r1829124572) and not >> removing "currency-amount" from input purpose ( >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539#pullrequestreview-2292988933). >> That first one I assume was an oversight. On the second one I disagree with >> your argument that "information about the user" needs to be "stable". There >> is no such requirement in the success criterion. The other arguments given >> in favor of removing feel questionable at best too. I think there are very >> good reasons why people may want a custom style on form fields where they >> fill in how much money they transfer to another. Far more so than many >> other fields. I don't think a philosophical discussion arguing what exactly >> "about" means doesn't trump the importance of allowing people who need it >> that kind of customization. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 12:58 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Wilco, >> >> >> >> On each of those: >> >> >> >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files#r1751701618 >> >> Removing a pair of brackets in regular text, so minor editorial. >> Personally, I think it reads better than the alternative way of saying that. >> >> Chair hat on: We could go either way, and I’ll note if others have strong >> reasoning for a change to that. >> >> >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files#r1829134724 >> >> There is a definition that includes the singular, I’ve linked to that in >> the comment. >> >> >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files#r1751701618 >> >> Repeat of the 1st item. >> >> >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3362/files#r1829151465 >> >> In the definition for “programmatically determined link context” you >> don’t want to link to an evergreen spec. The WCAG 2 issues TF has been >> doing that in the informative docs for a while. I can’t remember off-hand >> what the issues with linking to fixed versions was, but for defining what >> an HTML paragraph, it should be as stable a resource as any. >> >> >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539#pullrequestreview-2292988933 >> >> You don’t want to remove transaction amount from input purpose. This was >> replied to (and rebutted) on the pre-CfC email thread and in the github >> thread. In summary: A single financial transaction is not stable >> information about a user, and arguably isn’t included by the normative SC >> language as it stands. >> >> Chair hat on: I’ll note if others disagree with this aspect in this >> thread or the CFC thread. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> @alastc / www.nomensa.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> >> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 November 2024 at 11:03 >> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> >> *Cc: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *Re: CFC - WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata >> >> -1, several issues from the pre-CFC have not been responded to / >> addressed: >> >> >> >> My comments are in the various PRs: >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files#r1751701618 >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3038/files#r1829134724 >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3776/files#r1751701618 >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3362/files#r1829151465 >> - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539#pullrequestreview-2292988933 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:54 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> Call For Consensus — ends 8th November 2024 at 5pm Boston time. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> Since the pre-CFC email two of the items have been updated based on >> feedback, and three have been added, marked below. >> >> >> >> 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 >> UPDATED since the Pre-CFC email with this PR: >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4070 >> - Linking up various definitions where they have not been linked >> before (caught as part of the WCAG2ICT work). >> UPDATED since the Pre-CFC email. >> 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 >> - Style updates, things like lowercasing “web page” (NEW since >> pre-CFC) >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4080/files >> - Capitalisation fixes in the Parsing note for WCAG 2.1 (NEW since >> pre-CFC) >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3154/files >> - Fix typo/incorrect word in input purpose listing (NEW since pre-CFC) >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4034/files >> - Update changelog in guidelines/index.html (NEW since pre-CFC) >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4123 >> >> >> >> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not >> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not >> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before >> the CfC deadline. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> @alastc / www.nomensa.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Wilco Fiers* >> >> Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - >> Facilitator ACT Task Force >> >> *Error! Filename not specified.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Wilco Fiers* >> >> Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - >> Facilitator ACT Task Force >> >> >> > > > -- > *Wilco Fiers* > Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator > ACT Task Force > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2024 13:42:21 UTC