Use well defined normative language [Deque feedback]

[melaniephilipp]

In order to have repeatable results, it is important for WCAG 3's requirements to be precisely defined, and not subject to change. This was done fairly well in WCAG 2, with well established and meaningful definitions. This does not appear to be the case for WCAG 3.0. It is unclear if this is by design, or if this is because this is simply an area that has not yet had focus by the working group.

In either case, Deque recommends to continue with, and hopefully improve on the approach that was taken in WCAG 2.0. All requirements should be normative, so that they can only be updated by going through the W3C recommendation process. All requirements should be unambiguously defined, so that there is only one possible meaning for each requirement.

Additionally Deque recommends that where possible, terminology shared in different software environments be adopted over terminology that is largely exclusive to the web. This was done for example by using the word "view" over "web page", but could also have been done by using "accessible name" in place of "text alternative".

[lauracarlson]

Thank you for your comment. Project members are working on your comment. You may see discussion in the comment thread and we may ask for additional information as we work on it. We will mark the official response when we are finished and close the issue.

[alastc]

Sub-group response and update:

---

The sub-group proposes to add a design principles that says:

Normative requirements should be unambiguously defined, so that there is only one possible meaning for each requirement.

(Preview here, it is number 7 in the list under Design Principles.)

We already have the technology-neutral terminology in 4.4:
"Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology."

[jspellman]

Added "Define normative requirements unambiguously, so that there is only one possible meaning for each requirement. " which can be previewed in branch.

[rachaelbradley]

I will not object, but I find this statement to itself be confusing.

I am not sure if this is trying for something along the lines of defining terms within requirements so that each term has only one possible meaning or along the lines of writing normative guidance in a way to ensure that the requirements to meet the guidance is clearly defined and understood.

[alastc]

Update from the meeting:
"Normative requirements should be unambiguous so there is only one possible meaning for each requirement."

[alastc]

Included in a catchup PR #736