The horizontal review raised that WCAG should have a separate section for privacy and security issues in issue 3135.

Obviously this is rather late in the process, but fairly simply solved with PR 3215, as suggested by Andrew.

If we can add this normative text at this stage, we can use that PR. If that is not accepted by W3C members, we can fall-back to updating the "Introduction to understanding WCAG" document.

Assuming we can add it, is the PR acceptable to you (as AG members):

Summary

(21 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

The following questions are already dealt with, stop here!

Details

Scott opened issue 3091 on whether Target Size Min would fail common data visualisation approaches.

The thread came to: Not where they are 'essential'.

Bruce created PR 3188 to include that aspect.

Do you:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In a previous discussion we thought more work was needed on password / passcode / verification code used in Accessible Authentication. Michael Gower opened issue 3180 to capture that.

Michael also created PR 3185 to make updates.

Do you:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

From a previous discussion Bruce raised Issue 3193 on Focus Not obscured.

Bruce has a proposal for review in PR 3194 (file view).

Do you:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

A simple failure technique was created for Focus Not Obscured min & enhanced in PR 3178, and you can preview the failure.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Wilco opened Issue 2809 a while ago to discuss focus-not-obscured and whether would encourage keyboard issues.

Most of the issue has been addressed in previously agreed PRs, but there is one remaining to finish it off in PR 3163.

Do you:

Summary

(25 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

After all the changes in focus-appearance, the associated techniques also need updating. DanB created PR 3112 that updates C40 & C41.

This should allow us to close:

• #3026: Does a two-color focus indicator pass SC 2.4.11 if it contrasts itself?
• #3055: Technique C40: description and links mention text-shadow but examples use box-shadow
• #2469: C40 Example 1 "Test link" and "Test 2" fail 2.4.11 and 2.4.13 (thus NOT sufficient)
• #2575: Should C40 be also sufficient for 1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast
• #2470: Procedure C40 needs to be evaluated for 2.4.11: Focus Appearance (Minimum) and 2.4.13 Focus Appearance (Enhanced)

Do you:

Summary

(26 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In previous discussions we had agreed to add an 'in brief' section to understanding documents. An initial set for the WCAG 2.2 SCs has been created in PR 2905.

More can be added for 2.1 and 2.0, but we thought it best to get this into the new SCs first.

Do you:

Summary

(26 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Patrick opened Issue 3128 about the title of G219, which implies that an alternative to dragging has to be "single pointer", and that dragging is not single-pointer.

In a straightforward PR, PR 3133, Patrick makes that update, and an editorial update to F108 (on the SC name).

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Wilco opened Issue 3095 about one-time-codes (OTCs) and how we explain them in the understanding doc.

Patrick created PR 3150 to better explain it.

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Patrick raised issue 3045 about the lack of a minimum for target size when you include spacing.

Although we didn't want to update the SC text, Patrick created a big update for the understanding document in PR 3103.

This update will also close issue 2755.

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

ShawnL raised issue 3016 aiming to combine the exceptions for focus-appearance:

Exceptions:

• The focus indicator is determined by the user agent and cannot be adjusted by the author, or
• The focus indicator and the indicator's background color are not modified by the author.

In previous discussions we had decided to keep the exceptions separate due to different technologies allowing authors different levels of control. For example, authors have no control over focus indicators in PDFs (the first exception). The second exception was worded to allow 'default' indicators where they were not changed, but scoping-in changes of background and they can render the indicator invisible.

Previous discussions on this topic:

• 2022-02-15
• 2022-02-22 (this included discussion of the proposal from the github thread, and agreement to use two separate exceptions.).
• 2022-03-08 (a general overhaul of the SC text including the exceptions.)

The response in the thread was essentially: There is no new information here, we can clarify in the understanding document.

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Dan-HW created a new failture technique for accessible authentication in PR 2990.

Do you:

Summary

(25 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In order to partially address issue #1218 which requests references for the WCAG 2.2 SC, PR 3146 adds references to research and recommendations by the COGA taskforce.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2751 Melanie asked about scenarios where the user would open some content which could then obscure indicators.

There was a long thread, and some updates have already been made. The recent email to the list also covered the premise and direction.

This question is on the wording and understanding document updates.

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Michael Gower raised issue 3129 to tackle a misconception about Content on Hover of focus. (That skip links which become visible on focus would fail.)

There is a note at the bottom of the intent in the understanding document which explains this. However, it is easily missed.

PR 3130 moves the note to under the SC text (in the spec and the understanding document). Notes are not normative, but carry weight. This could be an errata for WCAG 2.1 as well.

Should we:

Summary

(25 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 3807, Patrick Lauke asks that '(Minimum)' be added to the name of 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication.

PR 3132 makes this update to change the name of the SC to 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Mitchell opened issue 3001, pointing out that there is a similar issue with the 1st example in "Programmatically determined" as Parsing has.

ChristopheS suggested using an example with the Accessibility tree, which is implemented in PR 3049.

Do you:

Summary

(15 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In preparation for tackling the user-controlled content areas issue, MichaelG created PR 3074 to overhaul the intent section.

One of the main changes was to move a note about configurable interfaces from the understanding document to the bottom of the SC text.

Do you:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In Issue 3086 Patrick pointed out some discrepancies in the two target size SCs.

PR 3097 implements some of the suggestions to:

• Use a description list for Target Size (min);
• Have both say "except where" (before one of them was "when");
• Use the same exception language for "equivalent".

Also, assuming that we have agreed the inline exception, we can also align that exception with PR 2858.

Those include editorial errata to the WCAG 2.1 Target Size (Enhanced).

Do you:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2692, Jake Abma notes that the pre-amble to the examples of 'Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)' states that the examples for the SC are 'very similar' to the examples found in the AA version of 'Accessible Authentication', when in fact they are exactly the same.

PR 3131 makes an update to the understanding document of 'Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)' which changes the language from 'very similar' to 'the same as'. Further, the understanding document of the AA version of 'Accessible Authentication' adds the pre-ample and refers to the AAA version.

Do you:

Summary

(28 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Wilco raised issue 3050 on the Spacing clause of target-size on two points:

• A target technically cannot overlap, as it is defined as an area of the screen which accepts pointer input.
• The element that passes but shouldn't may not be "overlapping", but "overlapped".

The 'overlapping' term was introduced to remove a lot of niche overlapping/nested cases. Anything which is nested cannot rely on the 'spacing' exception as there is no spacing. We could update that to "touching", or "abut". However, that would mean that adjacent 24px wide buttons with rounded corner would fail, but without rounded corners or with 1px spacing each side and they would pass.

This was discussed in a WCAG 2.x meeting and there appear to be two options:

• Carry on with the current text, explaining in the understanding doc that overlapping means more than adjacent.
• Switch to an alternative measure for the spacing.

The favoured alternative was implemented in PR 3089:

Spacing: Targets are spaced such that if 24 CSS pixel diameter circles are centered on each target, none of the circles intersect another circle or target.

An update like this is pushing what we can do at CR, but if it gets consensus I think it is meeting the same aims (but better) as the previous version.

Should we:

Summary

(21 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Wilco raised issue 3051 regarding the update "inline exception". Partly because Wilco thought that "link lists" should be in scope, and if numbered lists are included then why not "lettered lists"?

In previous discussions it was very difficult to establish an exception which could be consistently applied across a variety of link, non-link, and partial-link lists. Providing an exception based on the visual appearance of numbers/letter/bulleted lists provided the best correlation with what made intuitive sense. We particularly wanted to avoid people assuming it meant HTML based lists, as that is very wide.

From a WCAG 2.x meeting discussion, there is a proposal to change 'numbered' to 'enumerated' and explain in the understanding document, in PR 3084.

Should we:

Summary

(19 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Wilco raised issue 2809 about the scenario where developers may make cookie banners modal (for keyboard users) to pass focus-not-obscured.

In a previous meeting we had discussed (but decided against) adding an exception for this purpose.

To help mitigate the potential for negative outcomes, a couple of examples have been added to outline positive ways of passing in PR 3043.

Do you:

Summary

(17 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2850 a public commenter suggested updating what 'object recognition' means. It did indicate a misunderstanding of the intent, so an update to the understanding doc is proposed in 3044.

Do you:

Summary

(18 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

A public comment in issue 2866 raised some complications around copy-pasting short-term codes.

There appears to be a straightforward answer (in the thread), which is encoded in PR 3046.

Related, Patrick had another PR in 2618 which added more information about transcription and copy-paste.

Do you:

Summary

(18 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Richard Ishida (internationalisation) raised issue 2996 on the wording of the last note on vertical text.

Rather than saying "in a language displayed top to bottom", it should say "in a language displayed vertically", to allow for languages (e.g. Arabic) with vertically set text displayed bottom to top.

This PR 3047 is normative, but editorial.

Do you:

Summary

(17 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Microsoft have raised 3034, requesting that WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 are updated to align with 2.2 on 4.1.1 Parsing, i.e. not be required for conformance.

We had previously discussed (but not settled on) an option for 2.1 and 2.0. In principle, the options appear to be:

• Add a note to say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' but still required in 2.0 / 2.1, or
• Add a note to say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' and not required for conformance (also requiring an update to section 5.2, conformance), or
• Remove it and leave a note (as 2.2 does).

We had already committed to updating WCAG 2.1 with previous errata included (e.g. the updated contrast notes) after we'd dealt with WCAG 2.2 issues.

The ACT Task Force have also requested this information, and what happens with the 4.1.1 ACT Rules depends on this decision.

Dealing with this will close Issues 770, 2776, 3034.

If you choose one of the objection options please provide reasoning or it may not be given the weight of an objection.

Do you think we should:

Summary

(20 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Accessible authentication: In Issue 2650 someone commented that the understanding document is quite long, and doesn't seem to align with the topic.

Jemma took a pass at the document in PR 2988. The topics are generally aligned with the SC, and answer previous questions we have had on the SC.

Do you:

Summary

(23 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2436 Jake raised that the intent for redundant entry didn't quite match the SC.

PR 3033 makes a small update to the first paragraph.

Do you:

Summary

(21 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2550 Suzanne suggested replacing one of the examples with a better one from an equity point of view.

Detlev added the example, but found that the one to replace had already been updated.

Do you:

Summary

(23 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Focus obscured is missing a technique as it was added after our first round of techniques were created. Francis created one in PR 2746, which can be previewed.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

A commenter opened issue 2700 about what the user could to get around the focus being obscured.

Detlev provided an answer, although it isn't clear exactly what the commenter meant, and they have not replied.

I suggest we accept Detlev's response as the official answer.

Do you:

Summary

(23 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In the context of Consistent Help, Jon Avila asked in issue 2298 whether we could add more examples to the definition of set of web pages.

PR 3008 adds a couple of examples based on the thread comments.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Joe Watkins opened issue 2684 asking whether scrolling containers are in scope of Dragging Movements.

PR 3040 was created to say that scrolling based on the user agent (including scrollable containers) is not in scope of dragging.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Based on some discussion in issue 2706 (since closed), MichaelG created an update to the understanding document in PR 3017.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2805 JonA asks whether the data "available to select" needs to be in the same step, or page, or something else.

PR 3042 makes a couple of small updates to the understanding document to say that it needs to be on the same page.

Do you:

Summary

(23 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Google submitted a document in issue 2704 with quite a few questions and comments.

An initial response was created, but revised as many of the comments hadn't shown up initially. Now there is a full response.

There is also a small PR that adds a visual to the example about overlapping content.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2972 Jaws-test pointed out that the offet can be different because of the shape, not just the size of the targets.

The suggestion (in PR 3032) is to add 'or shapes' to the note.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2973 Jaws-test is concerned about odd shapes creating odd results with the updated definition of target-offset.

Alastair proposed a response, basically: This isn't new information, and the current version works better for more common cases.

Do you:

Summary

(26 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

In issue 2974 Jaws-test is concerned about odd shapes needing complex math to evaluate target offset.

Alastair proposed a response, basically: like the last issue, we are prioritising common cases.

Do you:

Summary

(27 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Dan raised issue 2803 focused on what "24 by 24px" means.

There were several options discussed in the thread, but the proposal in PR 2978 (lines 67-88) says that: if you can draw a 24 by 24px square at any angle within the target, it would pass the first line of the SC.

Do you:

Summary

(26 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

For Accessible Authentication: In issue 2524 someone raised that "Private access tokens" can be used to avoid CAPTCHAs.

Jemma scoured the IETF docs and found a couple of other things as well. A small addition to the understanding doc in PR 2983 outlines that these help, but are not 100%.

Do you:

Summary

(24 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details