Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Input Purposes for User Interface Components is an appendix, so should be marked as non-normative #3777

Open
fstrr opened this issue Apr 5, 2024 · 15 comments
Assignees
Labels
Editorial ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation WCAG 2.1 WCAG 2.2

Comments

@fstrr
Copy link
Contributor

fstrr commented Apr 5, 2024

Discussed in the backlog task force meeting on 5th April, Input Purposes for User Interface Components is an appendix, so should be marked as non-normative.

The trick to this seems to be adding a class="informative" attribute to the containing section element, but building the site locally doesn't create the homepage, so can't check this.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

you beat me there by 5 minutes...was just about to push up a PR 🏃

@fstrr
Copy link
Contributor Author

fstrr commented Apr 5, 2024

Well, you took that merge conflict off my hands, so I had a little time to look at something else

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Apr 8, 2024

As noted in the PR, I have located the original official WG response showing that this was clearly intended to be an appendix.
Given the wording of 5.1, an acceptable solution is also simply to add the word "Appendix" to the heading.

Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative).

That said, I think it would be good to see if there's anything in a style guide that shows how appendices are supposed to be structured, and make sure we follow that. Some may argue that the sections labelled with letters in our document are the indicators of appendices (again, with no label). @shawna-slh @iadawn are you aware of any guidance on this?

My old copy of Chicago states:

When more than one appendix appear in a book, they should be numbered like chapters (Appendix 1, Appendix 2, etc.) or designated by letters (Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.), and each should be given a title as well.

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Apr 12, 2024

It has been pointed out that WCAG 2.0 is significantly different than WCAG 2.1 in regard to structure, with each appendix specifically named and grouped under an Appendices section following the (unnumbered) conformance sections.

WCAG 2.0

image

WCAG 2.1

WCAG 2.1 introduced a right navigation for the outline. This may have contributed to changes in visible structure, but to point out some obvious differences, the glossary was previously (and problematicly) in an appendix BUT also marked normative. In 2.1, the glossary was moved forward (and its enumeration changed from a letter to a number), but while some Acknowledgements and References remained lettered B and C, all references to appendices vanished.
image

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Apr 19, 2024

My suggestion from the meeting:

Add the appendix heading about change log, and mark those and appendix a/b/c. (Probably done with the respect based classes rather than in text.)

Leave section 7 as it is (removing transction-amount separately), and it essentially is normative by that marking, removing the ambiguity.

@dbjorge
Copy link
Contributor

dbjorge commented Sep 6, 2024

I 👎'd the change (and 👍's @alastc's comment above) because I maintain that regardless of the original intent, the fact that this section is incorporated by reference as a required part of specifying SC 1.3.5 means that the section must be normative (unless we were to update SC 1.3.5 to say something like “for example” when referencing it)

@GreggVan
Copy link

GreggVan commented Sep 6, 2024

It looks like there might be a confusion between something "being" normative and something "containing" normative information.

"Sections" cannot be normative. Only the specific clauses that are required for conformance are normative.
(I know this was mislabelled in past WCAGs)

  • the titles of provisions are not even normative (only the requirement itself)
  • notes are never normative (they should only clarify what is normative )
  • examples are never normative -- and they should never fall outside of or expand the requirement language

What is normative?

  • the text of the provision itself - including exceptions if and only if they are included in the provision language itself
  • definitions
  • the conformance section/requirements

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed on backlog call 9/6. Conceptually, adding <h2>Appendices</h2> after the Glossary and before Input Purposes, is the simple fix -- but it is not that easy of course. We will defer to @kfranqueiro to propose how to proceed. Errata that results in visual change needs to go through CFC process (of course).

@bruce-usab bruce-usab added WCAG 2.1 WCAG 2.2 ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation labels Sep 6, 2024
@kfranqueiro
Copy link
Contributor

Since this is under TR, probably better to consult @iadawn first rather than me.

@iadawn iadawn assigned iadawn and unassigned fstrr Sep 11, 2024
@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

bruce-usab commented Sep 13, 2024

Discussed on TF call 9/13. We remain in agreement with the change and that it is editorial. Regardless, we closed the previously drafted PR #3778 since the fix will not be as easy as that.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

AG decision is memorized back in 21 March 2018. It was during a face-to-face meeting (maybe coincident with CSUN).

RESOLUTION: working group decides to move the list into an Appendix of WCAG 2.1 unless that change contravenes CR status.

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Sep 27, 2024

@alastc can we assume you and @iadawn have this in hand? I want to ensure that you have this in mind for the CFC.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

Discuss on TF call. I had meant to see I could find AG decision in minutes (and not just only the one GitHub issue).

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

bruce-usab commented Oct 4, 2024

I had no luck turning up minutes for March 21, 2018. gl listserv messages, Jan - Mar, 2018

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Oct 4, 2024

Overall, if there is a change we should just put "Appendix" above the lettered headings A-C.

Let's not touch the numbered sections (including glossary and input-purposes).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Editorial ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation WCAG 2.1 WCAG 2.2
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

9 participants