Microsoft WCAG 2.2 CR2 Feedback: Support for 4.1.1 Parsing removal (in *both* WCAG 2.2 and earlier)

[dbjorge]

I met with Microsoft CELA's Accessibility Technology group over the last two weeks to gather collective feedback on CR2 changes. Their feedback is aligned with the Microsoft's Accessibility Insights team's feedback from the perspective of a tool developer.

The parts we had specific new feedback on were the removal of 4.1.1 Parsing (this issue) and whether we supported keeping vs removing the at-risk 2.4.11 (separate issue #3037).

On 4.1.1 Parsing:

We are fine with the removal of 4.1.1 Parsing from WCAG 2.2 SO LONG as an errata is written and developed that addresses 4.1.1 Parsing for WCAG previous versions.

We are supportive of the intent of removing/obsoleting the errata, but because WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 are required legal standards in some jurisdictions we release products in, we think it would be necessary to release corresponding errata for those older versions for the removal in 2.2 to have practical impact on us. We strongly support creating such errata.

[alastc]

Hi @dbjorge,

For what the errata would functionally say, would it be better to:

• Say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' but still required, or
• Say it is removed from a later version, it is 'obsolete' and can be disregarded, or
• Remove it and leave a note (as 2.2 does).

[dbjorge]

@alastc, the key is that errata would need to make it clear that 4.1.1 is not required to comply with WCAG 2.0/2.1.

• "Obsolete but still required" doesn't address this concern - saying "still required" defeats the purpose of the errata.
• "Obsolete and can be disregarded" could possibly work, but we'd want to review the exact language. It would need to be super explicit that "can be disregarded" means "is not required to conform to any Conformance Level", which might require a corresponding update to 5.2.1.
• "Remove it and leave a note (as 2.2 does)" would be fine.

[mraccess77]

Given that 508 refers to dated versions of WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 removing it won't impact conforming to those standards if they don't accept errata .

[alastc]

We've agreed the notes: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/04-ag-minutes#item04

So this PR will go for CFC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3152/files

Then we can close this issue.

[alastc]

CFC passed, closing.