Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Microsoft WCAG 2.2 CR2 Feedback: Support for 4.1.1 Parsing removal (in *both* WCAG 2.2 and earlier) #3034

Closed
dbjorge opened this issue Feb 17, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Microsoft WCAG 2.2 CR2 Feedback: Support for 4.1.1 Parsing removal (in *both* WCAG 2.2 and earlier) #3034

dbjorge opened this issue Feb 17, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
4.1.1 Parsing Survey - Ready for WCAG 2.0 WCAG 2.1

Comments

@dbjorge
Copy link
Contributor

dbjorge commented Feb 17, 2023 •
edited

I met with Microsoft CELA's Accessibility Technology group over the last two weeks to gather collective feedback on CR2 changes. Their feedback is aligned with the Microsoft's Accessibility Insights team's feedback from the perspective of a tool developer.

The parts we had specific new feedback on were the removal of 4.1.1 Parsing (this issue) and whether we supported keeping vs removing the at-risk 2.4.11 (separate issue #3037).

On 4.1.1 Parsing:

We are fine with the removal of 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2 SO LONG as an errata is written and developed that addresses 4.1.1 Parsing for WCAG previous versions.

We are supportive of the intent of removing/obsoleting the errata, but because WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 are required legal standards in some jurisdictions we release products in, we think it would be necessary to release corresponding errata for those older versions for the removal in 2.2 to have practical impact on us. We strongly support creating such errata.
@dbjorge dbjorge mentioned this issue Feb 17, 2023
Closed
@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Feb 20, 2023 •
edited

Hi @dbjorge,

For what the errata would functionally say, would it be better to:

  • Say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' but still required, or
  • Say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' and can be disregarded, or
  • Remove it and leave a note (as 2.2 does).

@dbjorge
Copy link
Contributor Author

dbjorge commented Feb 21, 2023

@alastc, the key is that errata would need to make it clear that 4.1.1 is not required to comply with WCAG 2.0/2.1.

  • "Obsolete but still required" doesn't address this concern - saying "still required" defeats the purpose of the errata.
  • "Obsolete and can be disregarded" could possibly work, but we'd want to review the exact language. It would need to be super explicit that "can be disregarded" means "is not required to conform to any Conformance Level", which might require a corresponding update to 5.2.1.
  • "Remove it and leave a note (as 2.2 does)" would be fine.

@mraccess77
Copy link

mraccess77 commented Mar 7, 2023 •
edited

Given that 508 refers to dated versions of WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 removing it won't impact conforming to those standards if they don't accept errata
.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Apr 18, 2023

We've agreed the notes: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/04-ag-minutes#item04

So this PR will go for CFC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3152/files

Then we can close this issue.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Jun 1, 2023

CFC passed, closing.

@alastc alastc closed this as completed Jun 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
4.1.1 Parsing Survey - Ready for WCAG 2.0 WCAG 2.1
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@alastc @dbjorge @mraccess77 @fstrr