RE: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication

Hello Wilco,

Thank you the detailed review and timely feedback. We are working on definitions but we lost some of that by moving items to the explainer. The subgroup to define View is just starting though many definitions will come from the guideline subgroup process.

I suggest we consider adding placeholders in the glossary as we identify the terms we need to define and mark each definition with its maturity level. That way we ensure we are paying attention to the definitions as we move content forward and treat them as important parts of the standard.

Would that address this concern?

Kind regards,

Rachael

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 8:27 AM
To: Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/129__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!efVTj2oYO_wn28nc4bbSbitUZlcDtgcL0XVRrWn_-84mUKYLAXCSnNOr8JQlNFxgMPaxJFvyOGCf8lUqpQyi75HC$>  or the GitHub Preview<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://deploy-preview-129--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!efVTj2oYO_wn28nc4bbSbitUZlcDtgcL0XVRrWn_-84mUKYLAXCSnNOr8JQlNFxgMPaxJFvyOGCf8lUqpfO2NmDb$> 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
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]