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

Same as Glenda

-1     (I will be a +1 if the proposed changes to input-purpose are not made)
Shawn Thompson, WAS
Web Accessibility Technical Advisor | Conseiller technique en accessibilité Web
Montreal, Quebec

Email | Courriel Shawn@shawnthompson.ca
Cell | Cell (613) 363-7468




> On Nov 7, 2024, at 8:47 AM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> -1     (I will be a +1 if the proposed changes to input-purpose are not made)
> glenda sims <mailto: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 <http://deque.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:43 AM Helen Burge <hburgeassltd@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <http://www.nomensa.com/>
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com <mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com>>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, 5 November 2024 at 11:03
>>>> To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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
>>> 
>>>