WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2.2

for

From: Nick Bromley
Date: May 24, 2023 12:30PM

The WCAG public github (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues) is probably the best place to raise concerns and get involved.

From reading some of the discussions there, I get the sense there's a real willingness to make it happen but there are a lot of nuances and technicalities that require time and effort to resolve, and maybe they were concerned about the time to it was taking to implement it in a watertight fashion.

- - -
Nick Bromley
Director & Accessibility Consultant
Red Kite Digital Accessibility Ltd

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 6:27 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.2

I totally agree on both counts. I very much hope that both decisions will be reversed. How do we make that happen?

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Kevin Prince
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:09 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.2

It seems like the need for 2.4.13 is discounted, possibly by the same people who think 2.4.7 is only worthy of AA, as it's a little complex and only affects low vision/keyboard users. It really should be a AA, and 2.4.7 an A.

Kevin Prince
Kevin Prince
Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant

Foster Moore
A Teranet Company

E <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Christchurch
fostermoore.com<http://www.fostermoore.com/>;

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >> On Behalf Of Lucy GRECO
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 11:25 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.2

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.


thanks steeve i am also disappointed that the focus visible was moved that was not a good move sigh


Berkeley IT <https://technology.berkeley.edu/home><https://technology.berkeley.edu/home%3e>

Lucy Greco, Web Accessibility Evangelist

Campus IT Experience
Phone: (510) 289-6008 | Email: <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> > | https://dap.berkeley.edu/ Follow me on twitter @accessaces

We champion diversity. We act with integrity. We deliver. We innovate.



On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:09 PM Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >>
wrote:

> There have been several rewrites including one published today. If
> there are no more rewrites, WCAG 2.2 could become a Recommendation in
> three months. That said, I hope that some of the recent changes are
> reversed, which would delay this further.
>
> SC 2.4.13 (Focus Appearance) was a welcome and very necessary addition
> in my view, so I was dismayed that it has just been moved to level
> AAA. I very much hope it will be moved back to AA where it belongs.
>
> The original wording was almost incomprehensible. I wrote a test
> procedure that covered all the rules and exceptions, and it filled two A4 pages.
> Depending on the design, it potentially required 6 or more colour
> measurements and 4 contrast ratio calculations in addition to
> measuring numerous lengths and widths and calculating areas. That
> said, it resulted in sensible pass / fail results for all the focus
> indicator designs I tested.
>
> The new wording is much simpler, but it has some unfortunate consequences.
> For instance, if the focus indicator is an underline, it now needs to
> be at least five pixels thick, whereas three pixels would previously
> have been sufficient. This means that the focus indicators in some
> design systems, such as https://desi/
> gn-system.service.gov.uk%2F&data%7C01%7Ckevin.prince%40fostermoore.
> com%7C6558bb486c52403e6e6908db572dfde1%7Cb227fb96cd1e479f8a43b1a2a422e0c2%7C0%7C0%7C638199627283065825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GTiNog1%2Bn7IHlmqWTNrz1NpKEV5lpxrtVwQ4m1g4x%2Fg%3D&reserved=0, would not be conformant. I can't help wonder if this is why the SC has been dropped to level AAA. The level should be determined by user needs, not difficulty of implementation, and on that basis I can't see an argument for it not being level AA.
>
> SC 2.4.11 (Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)) is another welcome addition
> at level AA. It's easy to understand and to test. It's relatively easy
> to fix existing websites and we have helped a client apply it to a
> dropdown menu already.
>
> SC 2.5.8 (Target Size (Minimum)) is more complicated than you might
> expect, but it's straightforward once you get your head around it.
>
> I haven't had more than a cursory look at the other level A and AA SCs
> because they will be relevant far less often, but they all look reasonable.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto:webaim-forum-bounces@list
> .webaim.org>> On Behalf Of Jon Brundage via WebAIM-Forum
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 8:27 PM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >>
> Cc: <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.2
>
> Hello-
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on the new success criteria in WCAG 2.2? And when do you
> think it will be adopted as a standard? 2.1 came out pretty recently
> (in terms of WCAG time) and I would think it would be a while until a
> new standard was published.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> > > http://list/.<;http://list/>;
> webaim.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ckevin.prince%40fostermoore.com%7C6558bb48
> 6c52403e6e6908db572dfde1%7Cb227fb96cd1e479f8a43b1a2a422e0c2%7C0%7C0%7C
> 638199627283065825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo
> iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xQzIyciK
> tV3X430%2FbMLwKP%2FpfyH5oZNUfQCP7kAPYMo%3D&reserved=0 List archives at
> http://webai/
> m.org%2Fdiscussion%2Farchives&data%7C01%7Ckevin.prince%40fostermoor
> e.com%7C6558bb486c52403e6e6908db572dfde1%7Cb227fb96cd1e479f8a43b1a2a42
> 2e0c2%7C0%7C0%7C638199627283065825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7
> C&sdata=JylX7wJSs3VA4himHADawFISH1rtdqJZb22EZ8RZjoM%3D&reserved=0
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > > http://list/.<;http://list/>;
> webaim.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ckevin.prince%40fostermoore.com%7C6558bb48
> 6c52403e6e6908db572dfde1%7Cb227fb96cd1e479f8a43b1a2a422e0c2%7C0%7C0%7C
> 638199627283065825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo
> iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xQzIyciK
> tV3X430%2FbMLwKP%2FpfyH5oZNUfQCP7kAPYMo%3D&reserved=0
> List archives at
> http://webai/
> m.org%2Fdiscussion%2Farchives&data%7C01%7Ckevin.prince%40fostermoor
> e.com%7C6558bb486c52403e6e6908db572dfde1%7Cb227fb96cd1e479f8a43b1a2a42
> 2e0c2%7C0%7C0%7C638199627283065825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7
> C&sdata=JylX7wJSs3VA4himHADawFISH1rtdqJZb22EZ8RZjoM%3D&reserved=0
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>