Re: Are "notes" normative or informative in WCAG 2.0?

Thanks for the clarification :-) Much appreciated. It's not a hypothetical
question - the reason we're asking is because the formula for computing
color contrast is slightly off, and we're exploring if it can be changed or
not.

W

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

> On 19/05/2018 16:18, Wilco Fiers wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I entirely understand. The SC notes are part of the "WCAG
>> 2.0 Guidelines" section, which is normative. Why would the note not be
>> normative?
>>
>>
> They are normative. That's what I meant here:
> "W3C TR documents have both normative and informative content, and the
> type of content is clearly marked for each section. The notes included
> under some SC (like the one under SC1.4.2) are not marked as informative,
> and so should be considered normative."
>
> WCAG2.0 is a TR document, so it can contain both normative and informative
> content. In WCAG2.0 all content is normative unless it is specifically
> marked as informative (like the Introduction for example).
>
> So this note included under SC1.4.2 is considered normative, because it is
> contained within WCAG2.0 itself and is not specifically marked as
> informative content:
> "Note: Since any content that does not meet this success criterion can
> interfere with a user's ability to use the whole page, all content on the
> Web page (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) must
> meet this success criterion."
>
> The links to "Understanding 1.4.2" and "How to meet 1.4.2" both point to
> documents that are W3C Notes though. W3C Notes (capital N) are always
> informative.
>
> So there is a difference between a "Note" (capital N), which is a specific
> type of document produced by the W3C, and a "note" (lowercase n), which is
> a piece of prose included in either type of W3C document.
>
> HTH
> Léonie.
>
>
>
>
> W
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk <mailto:
>> tink@tink.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 18/05/2018 16:22, Glenda Sims wrote:
>>
>>         Can you clarify if  a "note"  inside a normative section of WCAG
>>         2.0 is normative or informative?  If a "note" is only
>>         informative, where is that documented?
>>
>>         I'm pretty sure I've heard that anything in a "note" is not
>>         normative.  But I can't point to anything that makes that
>>         crystal clear.  And...perhaps, I'm wrong.
>>
>>
>>     I believe you're both right.
>>
>>     The documents known as W3C Notes (as opposed to W3C Technical
>>     Reports (TR)) are informative. The Understanding WCAG2.0 is a W3C
>>     Note, and so it is entirely informative.
>>
>>     W3C TR documents have both normative and informative content, and
>>     the type of content is clearly marked for each section. The notes
>>     included under some SC (like the one under SC1.4.2) are not marked
>>     as informative, and so should be considered normative.
>>
>>         Can you help settle this debate between Wilco and me?
>>         G
>>
>>
>>     Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>>
>>         *glenda sims* <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com
>>         <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>>, cpacc
>>         <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification
>>         <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>> | team
>>         a11y lead | 512.963.3773
>>         deque systems <http://www.deque.com> accessibility for good
>>
>>
>>     --     @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Wilco Fiers*
>> Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
>>
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>



-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG