Re: WCAG 2.x Editorial updates

I was just going to reply to the group with a similar comment. Unordered
list is <ul> and ordered list is <ol>. But, as John mentioned, the wording
for that bullet point may be a bit confusing and would need to be tweaked a
little.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:03 AM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Alastair writes:
> >  <ol> used instead of <ul> when no order is intended/necessary
>
> Errmm... isn't that the other way around? That *<ul>* is used when no
> order is intended? (It may just be the way this was written, but noting it
> just in case...)
>
> JF
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:21 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> These have been merged.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Alastair Campbell
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 15:22
>> *To: *WCAG list
>> *Subject: *WCAG 2.x Editorial updates
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> A while back we discussed doing asynchronous approvals of minor changes
>> to the informative WCAG 2.x documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> We’ll refine this process when the new Task Force is started, but in the
>> meantime, I thought we could beta-test this process.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a short list of a few backlog items:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AAsync-Approval
>> +
>>
>>
>>
>> If any of these appear to create problems, or you think should not be
>> merged: Please reply in the github thread or to this email by the 30th
>> August.
>>
>> +1s are not required for this type of (largely editorial) changes to
>> informative documents. We will default to merging unless problems are
>> spotted.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you don’t respond by then we will merge it, but if you later
>> spot/discover a problem, that’s ok, we can do a similar update in future.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Overview of PRs / Changes*
>>
>>
>>
>> Reformat definition lists, ordered lists, fix Reading Level understanding
>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3296> #3296
>>
>>    - seems back in the WCAG 2.0 days, definition lists weren't used.
>>    This retrospectively fixes it
>>    - <ol> used instead of <ul> when no order is intended/necessary
>>    - fix the completely broken listing of education levels for Reading
>>    Level understanding
>>
>>
>>
>> Tweak 2.4.6 Headings and Labels understanding
>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3295> #3295
>>
>> Remove incorrect suggestion that headings/labels should make sense out of
>> context, reformat lists (particularly what seemed to be a definition list,
>> but marked up with <strong>?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Follow-up changes to 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 understanding documents
>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3216> #3216
>>
>>    - corrects a mistake where the text about focus/hover in 1.4.6
>>    understanding talks about 1.4.3 applying also to focus/hover, when it
>>    actually means to say that THIS SC applies here as well. this PR now
>>    generalises that text to just say "This Success Criterion"
>>    - adds a <code> block that was missed out for the contrast formula
>>    - reformats the contrast formula rationale part for enhanced
>>    contrast, to bring it in line with the same text in the minimum contrast
>>    understanding
>>    - tweaks the rationale to mention 1.4.6 in relation to 7:1 ratio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Update text alternative for target size (minimum) understanding
>> illustrations <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3190> #3190
>>
>>    - corrects the incomplete alt for the target-spacing-toolbar example
>>    - expands the alt for a few of the following illustrations
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>