APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1

[michael-n-cooper]

We appreciate the addition of section D.1 WCAG Considerations and its content. This is very helpful. We would, though,
like to change the phrasing "WCAG 2.1 recommends" to "WCAG 2.1 requires", because the WCAG success criteria are normative requirements rather than recommendations.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1 imsc#519, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: Discussed in today's call and agreed to do an editorial pass to adjust the text so that it no longer interpret WACG guidelines as recommendations

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Topic: APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1 imsc#519
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/519
<cyril> nigel: they are suggesting that we do a change about WACG
<cyril> ... change 'recommends' to 'requires'
<cyril> ... D.1 does not say it's not normative
<cyril> ... so that would be a normative change
<cyril> ... we have to do that before publishing CR?
<cyril> pal: that's news to me because WACG are guidelines and do not use MUST or SHALL
<cyril> ... it was not clear to me that they were requirements
<cyril> nigel: they're called guidelines, they have success criteria
<cyril_> gkatsev: WACG has a conformance section
<cyril_> pal: my recommendation would be to remove the word 'recommends' and replace it with 'specifies' so that the WACG document speaks for itself, instead of us trying to interpret it
<cyril_> nigel: the text currently says 'recommends that an implementation provide'
<cyril_> ... it's not very clear if it's the implementation or the content provider
<cyril_> pal: in general, my preference would be to paraphrase as little as possible and point to WACG
<cyril_> nigel: I agree it feels uncomfortable to try to interpret another recommendation
<cyril_> ... I would make an adjustment to pal's proposal
<cyril_> ... "specifies provisions of"
<cyril_> pal: I can take a pass at it and propose text
<cyril_> nigel: it's further down as well
<cyril_> ... in paragraphs 5 and 6
<cyril_> nigel: in terms of CR, this is a change to normative text
<cyril_> ... I would be more comfortable delaying that by a couple of weeks
<cyril_> ... it's likely to have less of an impact now that if we do it later
<cyril_> pal: the question in my mind is: is that going to change anythign
<cyril_> nigel: as in what?
<cyril_> pal: I don't think it changes any conformance to IMSC
<cyril_> nigel: it does not look like we have conformance language associated with it but it is in a normative section
<cyril_> pal: on the basis of that one, that's not a change of requirements
<cyril_> ... the risk is not very high
<cyril_> nigel: for this specific issue, we should have an editorial pass
<cyril_> SUMMARY: Discussed in today's call and agreed to do an editorial pass to adjust the text so that it no longer interpret WACG guidelines as recommendations
<cyril_> RRSAgent, pointer
<RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-tt-irc#T16-21-07

[gzimmermann]

I still don't like the wording "Guideline 1.1 of [WCAG21] recommends" - this occurs 3 times in D.1. Although technically WCAG 2.1 is a "recommendation", the guidelines and success criteria are to be followed when aiming for conformance.
Can we settle on "Guideline 1.1 of [WCAG21] requires", etc.?

[nigelmegitt]

@gzimmermann have you been able to review #526? In that pull request I think every instance of "WCAG ... recommends" has been changed.

[gzimmermann]

@gzimmermann have you been able to review #526? In that pull request I think every instance of "WCAG ... recommends" has been changed.

Thanks, i see it now. Okay with me.

[nigelmegitt]

Great, thank you @gzimmermann