Re: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication

Hey Rachael,
I think placeholder definitions would be very helpful.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:44 PM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> 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> 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
>
>
>


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