Re: Comments (was CFC - WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata)

-1     (
*I will be a +1 if the proposed changes to input-purpose are not made)*
*glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpwa
<https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>   | chief
information accessibility officer (ciao) | 512.963.3773

Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good

deque.com



On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:43 AM Helen Burge <hburgeassltd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>