#811: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 2023-01-30 > 2023-02-24

Visit on Github.

Opened Jan 30, 2023

Name of your specification

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2

URL of your specification

https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/CRD-WCAG22-20230125/

When does the review need to be finished?

2023-02-24

What has changed since any previous review?

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#substantive-changes-since-the-6-september-2022-candidate-recommendation

Please point to the results of your own self-review

No response

Where and how should the i18n WG raise issues?

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/

Pointer to any explainer for the spec

No response

Other comments

No response

Discussions

Comment by @torgo Jan 30, 2023 (See Github)

Hi @michael-n-cooper thanks for this! We are just setting this up for discussion in our virtual face-to-face. Can you please send an explainer to give us a little more context on this review?

Comment by @michael-n-cooper Jan 31, 2023 (See Github)

Hi @torgo WCAG 2.2 doesn't have a formal explainer, it's been continuing the old WCAG 2.x work. Explanatory material is in an Overview and the Understanding WCAG 2.2 materials. This horizontal review is focused on changes since the previous CR.

Comment by @torgo Feb 13, 2023 (See Github)

Thanks @michael-n-cooper that's really helpful.

Discussed Mar 13, 2023 (See Github)

Dan: changes since previous CR

Dan: suggest we close and give a positive review based on these 5 items .. I don't see any issues here.

Hadley: 3 of them are editorial. 5th one is renaming a session to "enhanced"

Dan: on 2.5.8 I don't see anything worrying ..

Hadley: only one that seems consequential is the parsing... Says "This criterion was originally adopted to address problems that Assistive Technology had directly parsing HTML. Assistive Technology no longer has any need to directly parse HTML and, consequently, these problems no longer exists." I presume that is the case...

Dan: this is in their wheelhouse...

Hadley: slightly architectural... But I think it's fine.

Lea: nothing seems worrying to me.

Hi @michael-n-cooper - thanks again for bringing this to our attention as part of wide review.  We've reviewed and we're happy to see this go forward.   Can you clarify regarding the parsing issue (4.1.1) - just for our benefit so we understand why AT is no longer parsing HTML? Are you confident that there aren't any remaining edge cases where that would still be needed?

Dan: comment left let's close at the plenary.

Comment by @torgo Mar 13, 2023 (See Github)

Hi @michael-n-cooper - thanks again for bringing this to our attention as part of wide review. We've reviewed and we're happy to see this go forward. Can you clarify regarding the parsing issue (4.1.1) - just for our benefit so we understand why AT is no longer parsing HTML? Are you confident that there aren't any remaining edge cases where that would still be needed?

Discussed Mar 27, 2023 (See Github)

Lea: can we rubberstamp.

Rossen: no substantive changes.

Dan: AT parsing removed https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/CR-WCAG22-20230124/#parsing

Rossen: this is good news.

Peter: data comes directly from

Yves: i would say OK to close:

Tess: yes.

Dan: closes and leaves comment

Comment by @torgo Mar 29, 2023 (See Github)

@michael-n-cooper as discussed in today's TAG call, we're happy to close this as satisfied - thanks again for sending this our way. If you can let us know some more detail on the issue I asked about above that would be great. Thanks for flying TAG.