Re: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication

Hey Rachael,

Can you clarify something for me. The big thing that jumps out at me
reading this is the lack of normative definitions. Basic things like what
is a view, an image, content, minimum contrast test, a product,
conventional layouts, consistent, sections, etc. etc. Is the intent for
those things to be left undefined, or will those definitions be created in
the future? If the latter, at what level can we expect definitions?

The lack of normative definitions is troubling to me. It's easy to agree on
vague language. I have no disagreement with an outcome like "Decorative
image is programmatically hidden". I can read into that whatever I feel is
decorative, an image, and what programmatically hidden means. You can do
the same, and even if we have different understandings of those three terms
we can both approve and be happy about the result. If we don't ensure we
have a shared understanding of this standard, we won't be able to apply and
test this standard consistently. Building that shared understanding is the
hardest part of this work. Definitions are the foundation of a standard,
these ought to be a high priority, not an afterthought.

WCAG 3 explainers / how to's / understanding documents won't solve this
problem. I know that's the direction some people are thinking in. These
don't have the authoritativeness of a normative document. That an
understanding document says 4.5:1 is sufficient for a "minimum contrast
test" doesn't mean anything. These documents are not recognized by
legislators, they don't go through a public review process, and the W3C can
change what's in them at any time. By not saying how large a focus
indicator needs to be for example, we're essentially saying there is no
minimum size. Even if the how-to document says otherwise. Informative
documents are not the requirements.


On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:38 PM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> The AG has been reviewing and editing the list of guidelines for our next
> publication. This email is a pre-CFC to raise awareness of anyone who is
> not attending meetings.
>
>
>
> Please review PR 129 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/129> or the GitHub
> Preview <https://deploy-preview-129--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/> and
> email the group if there are concerns that need to be addressed before we
> go to CFC. We will be discussing this at Tuesday’s meeting.
>
>
>
> Depending on the results of that discussion and any email conversation, we
> may move to CFC next week.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Rachael
>


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