Proposed updates to the WCAG2ICT work statement #942
Conversation
This is to update the work statement for phase 2 work remaining.
✅ Deploy Preview for wai-website ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @maryjom I read through this and it reads well. I won't approve until we talk through it on the upcoming task force call.
@ChrisLoiselle This extra markup is handled by the W3C website rendering/processing as it was already in the file and then appears on the rendered page as the table of contents at the top of the page. I don't know how to get a view that is the rendered content in my branch. |
|
I am strongly of the opinion that work statement should/could be revised so as not to preclude guidance similar to:
|
See the [21 Nov. meeting minutes](https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-wcag2ict-minutes.html) for details of what was discussed.
| * Publish updated WCAG2ICT Note. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Phase 2 | ||
|
|
||
| The next phase of updates would include any other in-scope work, including Level AAA, that was not addressed in Phase 1. Details of the Phase 2 timeline will be developed outside of this document when more is known about the scope of work left to do. | ||
| The next phase of updates will include any other in-scope work, including: | ||
| * Addition of guidance for Level AAA success criteria. Details of the Phase 2 timeline are found outside of this document. See the [schedule and milestones](https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Schedule-and-milestones) page in the GitHub WCAG2ICT Wiki. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@daniel-montalvo per last week's meeting notes, should this be changed to be further down the list of items in the list?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think so, as per https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-wcag2ict-minutes#f10a
| * address challenges in [Open issues labeled WCAG2ICT](https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Awcag2ict). | ||
| * clarification of challenges of applying particular WCAG 2.x success criteria to non-web ICT, including closed product software; | ||
| * address challenges in [Open issues labeled WCAG2ICT](https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Awcag2ict); and | ||
| * provide an explainer that clarifies the usage of WCAG2ICT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to this addition.
Within the explainer, I'd like to see a section "What WCAG2ICT does not do". (I'll bring this idea to our next call, where the explainer outline is on the agenda.) Without solving every problem, we give a clear description of the problems that WCAG2ICT did not solve — like techniques, or how it applies to specific platforms and kinds of content. This will make it easier for a parallel or future effort, such as a community group, to have a clear place to pick up and continue from where the Task Force left off.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A high-level explanation will be valuable, but after today's Task Force call I don't think "explainer" is the right word for it. Other W3C Explainers are value propositions of an ongoing effort, whose main audience is other W3C members. I'd rather make it an introduction for audiences beyond the W3C, like this ATAG overview or this explanation of standards harmonization.
We can decide later whether this introduction will become part of the existing WCAG2ICT Note or a separate document.
| * provide an explainer that clarifies the usage of WCAG2ICT | |
| * provide a concise, high-level overview or introduction to WCAG2ICT, explaining its purpose and how to use it |
| * as needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies; and | ||
| NOTE: This would not be suggested changes to change WCAG itself, but instead provide language more meaninful in non-web contexts. For example, provide alternative language in criteria that the WCAG normative language uses CSS pixels, to use language more appropriate for non-web technologies. | ||
| * how each of the WCAG 2.x Level AAA success criteria could apply to non-web technologies. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The "NOTE:" is currently on a separate line in markdown, but is run together in the rendered page.
I suggest moving it below. This suggestion also wordsmiths the note...
| * as needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies; and | |
| NOTE: This would not be suggested changes to change WCAG itself, but instead provide language more meaninful in non-web contexts. For example, provide alternative language in criteria that the WCAG normative language uses CSS pixels, to use language more appropriate for non-web technologies. | |
| * how each of the WCAG 2.x Level AAA success criteria could apply to non-web technologies. | |
| * as needed, suggested changes to success criteria normative language to more clearly align with non-web software and document technologies; and | |
| * how each of the WCAG 2.x Level AAA success criteria could apply to non-web technologies. | |
| NOTE: "suggested changes to success criteria" would not be suggestions to change WCAG itself, but instead to provide language more meaningful in non-web contexts. For example, in criteria where the WCAG normative language uses CSS pixels, the Task Force could provide alternative language more appropriate for non-web technologies. | |
Preview
This is to update the work statement for phase 2 work remaining.