RE: Animation conveying information

Not really what I had in mind with 'authoritative interpretations' - I was really thinking of text that addresses commonplace misconceptions about certain success criteria like "SC1.3.3: this success criterion exclusively and explicitly applies to text or text alternatives that refer to the sensory characteristics of a control or controls in the same view. It does not apply to the sensory characteristics of the control itself" or similar (you get the idea). 

I have no misconceptions about how difficult formulating such content can be especially in umpteen languages and considering all the policy endpoints and stakeholders involved ... I am also sure everyone is appreciative of the efforts of the various working groups that goes on behind the scenes ...but stylistically I find the brevity and calculated ambiguity of WCAG content an impediment to applying the specification consistently.


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 5:31 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Animation conveying information

On 07/08/2024 03:27, Adam Cooper wrote:
[...]
> perhaps the understanding documents could also provide authoritative 
> interpretations for the most contested success criteria from the last 
> 20 years?

That's what the WCAG 2.x backlog group has been trying to tackle for the last few months, and continues to do. Outcomes of which are things like the clarification in 2.1.1's understanding from that caused the ruckus in the other thread...

--
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2024 00:32:15 UTC