Re: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication

Can we please add numbers to the Guidelines section? With a list this long,
it is hard to keep track visually of what is the biggest heading size/least
amount of indentation, etc.

I'm already familiar with the list, but I keep getting lost as I scroll
through it. It will be even more confusing for people who are totally new
to the list.

If there is opposition to using numbers, can we come up with another way to
help users follow the hierarchy? Bullets, sub-bullets, etc?




On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:20 AM Jaunita George <
jaunita_george@navyfederal.org> wrote:

> Also, forgot +1 to getting this out – knowing we’ll continue to work and
> build things out.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaunita George
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2024 10:07 AM
> *To:* Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov>; Wilco Fiers <
> wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication
>
>
>
> Piggy-backing on this – we should also have a clear definition for what we
> mean by ‘web technologies’ and at what point a non-web technology becomes a
> web technology. For example:
>
>
>
>    1. Emails are technically not ‘web technologies’ but then can also be
>    viewed in the browser
>    2. Hybrid apps-Many native apps embed sites available on the web, so
>    one would actually be viewing something available on the web but also
>    included in a native app (on Windows, Mac or mobile OS) and then you have
>    hybrid apps like SharePoint which don’t function like standard websites.
>    3. Digital documents technically aren’t always considered a web
>    technology because they’re not viewable in the browser
>
>
>
> We need to be clear about what’s in/out of scope. Happy to help work with
> some folks to flesh out a definition.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2024 8:44 AM
> *To:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [External] RE: Pre-CFC - WCAG 3.0 Guidelines for publication
>
>
> ATTENTION
>
> This email originated outside of Navy Federal. Please exercise caution
> when clicking links, opening attachments or responding to this email.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1B98vpQ-lHFMvIaFRj0V2zsd-T4rf8pOsdYxkdDUeHh_lP_rvTjK4fyYTAt5xjfbLc7ludCwlBY7BaZHmsqWhVgnTpdVFhiVI_VsadSwxE0i6sPCwG74sB1F08iUQhVvIahtmRg3mHdSFZkV8yG9X-eOIxUZbOn7z4Jjt2thwmVyyWI-lAJU6oJE9zNzMujl-S150TaiuQ7qKdkOKINkB4DcN6cqUgPw11tnetDafDeMhz2FMg_ybHGEMMolhcRpDm2xGnD_AIyaXidlxM-aUTnJPA_uVtzK49ghM6_5kTu9lNX5St6VNjat06gRekl6x25-N07kxuAvJpF8cL2-VVuMxWyj5lFxkIEG2yn9lQXVBa1oWffEQKXNO0NzIDFN-xbQ74nZwL811sVW6m8muY5sjlk1jZPUpj3wDGnEHlRmp2OUlsKo3sTdme54g6uGL3UHEuY07Kqg3CIC7GYOTxw/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag3%2Fpull%2F129__%3B%21%21EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ%21efVTj2oYO_wn28nc4bbSbitUZlcDtgcL0XVRrWn_-84mUKYLAXCSnNOr8JQlNFxgMPaxJFvyOGCf8lUqpQyi75HC%24> or
> the GitHub Preview
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1MoBItRHTgrPjQNej-uB5gRbgNPAIL9E3mjb4f3M0tZ_WG-I2YtZapfItitfGfScVVu1i7YpXcc9GMVn5fnqLreBfGB4OVrIkGfAwHlSQfj_2M_r_rp8MSD6ltyMjvjYzO9LnjKQgQR0XjAR0_fJ7E3kiguwZ-1ubwKLgfJL32ZmjgOpRWc-Iu6oDGEeNK2zR38FvlseNn9ckTS21xaHLC5HJuyUAnTECFUpNVpTRQPtrZHibpyQoc4F8nk4sRZRowMeqQdpOgxC0WiaetESdkxtHpxJ9xJzp354dJBXqe1lDDb3bAjVqrhlLF-i_arQBoxEfJ7VUgenwUI85P9qUKGYrTtQRypvnlhgXpPNAV3HWh2Qz7F7k0YwZR36QOSP0P7n4bbqTv18sAm2aK6tVrhPdZW9JLDi1VJt1xQUwMaITVgqgbXkojmXiqCiVw-HGfNeT_HQSc1Kjq9klBj75wg/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-129--wcag3.netlify.app%2Fguidelines%2F__%3B%21%21EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ%21efVTj2oYO_wn28nc4bbSbitUZlcDtgcL0XVRrWn_-84mUKYLAXCSnNOr8JQlNFxgMPaxJFvyOGCf8lUqpfO2NmDb%24>
> 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
>
>
>