Re: [External] Pre-CFC of next WCAG 3 draft

Hi Alistor
I am not delaying this draft, but I think it needs to be clearer than it is
that this is an early draft and substantial changes are expected at all
provision levels. The few provisions I have looked out did not seem to meet
the needs of coga, to an extent that was upsetting, including developing
provisions. It may have been the bad luck of  sampling (hopefully).
I also think it will take a few months for COGA to be able to review it in
a meaningful way. We plan to schedule a detailed review when it is
published.
Small technical point. The introduction states that exploratory provisions
are in the editors draft and not the published draft. Will that stay
the case?

All the best
Lisa

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 4:23 PM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> Wilco,
>
> Thank you for calling those out. We didn’t catch that those definitions
> hadn’t been included. This is exactly why we do a pre-CFC and we appreciate
> the detailed and timely review!
>
> We will work to get those definitions in before CFC.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rachael
>
> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 7:06 AM
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [External] Pre-CFC of next WCAG 3 draft
>
> *CAUTION:* This email message has been received from an external source.
> Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
> Hey Alastair,
>
> Can you clarify something for me? I recall that last we talked about we
> had agreed developing requirements would need to have all its definitions
> at least at exploratory. I just went over the doc and it looks like there
> are 23 proposed for developing that still have placeholder definitions. Is
> this intentional? I think these definitions need at least exploratory
> content before the requirements are moved to developing.
>
> - Consistent structural order  =>  structural component + variation of
> product or process
> - Decorative images hidden  =>  image
> - Image alternatives available  =>  image
> - Images detectable  =>  non-decorative image
> - Sounds identified  =>  transcript
> - Transcripts available  =>  transcript
> - Visual information identified  =>  transcript
> - Graphical object contrast sufficient  =>  contrast ratio test
> - Interactive element contrast sufficient  =>  contrast ratio test
> - Roles, values, states, properties available  =>  state
> - Default focus indicator used  =>  focus indicator
> - Focus indicator contrast sufficient  =>  focus indicator
> - Focus indicator size sufficient  =>  focus indicator
> - Blocks of content available enhanced  =>  meaningful blocks of content
> - Blocks of content available minimum  =>  meaningful blocks of content
> - Heading structure available  =>  meaningful blocks of content
> - Relationships detectable  =>  relationship of meaning
> - Sections labeled  =>  meaningful blocks of content
> - Clear language review  =>  clear language
> - Text style adjustable  =>  style property
> - Text style readable enhanced  =>  style property
> - Text style readable minimum  =>  style property
> - Virtual cursor supported  =>  point of regard
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 10:26 PM Alastair Campbell <
> alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As we move towards publishing the next update to WCAG 3, we are conducting
> a pre-CFC to provide an opportunity for any last minute feedback before we
> move into CFC.
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!ewxn8UEguP0YznBy6sBcQm12yUKqfLvkfoKUkRKRjDHEwpYcznE2tBMFS3KMspRBIMKdIP3bbo82KOWVe7GIEDBT$>
>
> Note: Exploratory provisions are shown in this version, they will be
> removed in the published draft version.
>
> We have reviewed the current document several times. Provisions that were
> identified as not ready to be moved to developing, have been left as
> Exploratory. Other issues that were raised through those reviews have been
> captured in GitHub. We have added GitHub issues
>
> Editors have conducted several passes to clean up the draft based on
> feedback. Changes since the last group review include:
>
>    - Short names have been updated;
>    - Definitions have been added; and
>    - Provisions have been relabelled as core or supplemental based on the
>    rules discussed in the meeting.
>
>
> Please take time to review the editor's draft before end of day Wednesday,
> February 18th. If additional changes are needed, please reply to this
> email.  (This is still a draft, if something doesn’t cause
> misunderstanding, it can probably be captured in an issue.)
>
> We will move to CFC on the 19th with the goal of closing it on the 24th
> and publishing on the 26th.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> AGWG chairs
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Director accessibility automation - W3C AC representative - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
>