❌ Deploy Preview for wcag2 failed.

Discussed on backlog call, add to CFC.

Discussed on TF call 11/8, might be OBE. @kfranqueiro will check in again with @shawna-slh

/me looks up OBE ... officer (of the Order) of the British Empire / Order of the British Empire ... out-of-body experience ... overcome / overtaken by events

After revision this PR now:

1. changes the link directly to the Supplemental Guidance About page, which includes important context such as "Following this guidance is not required to meet WCAG. And, we encourage you to follow this guidance in order meet more user needs."

• the current link would take them 3 steps to get there (which is on purpose for other use cases, but would be bad for this use case... though we could add a new section just for this use case if there is a reason not to update the link...)
• if it's better to make a bit less of a change, the link could include the rest of the phrase: <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2/supplemental/about/">supplemental guidance on improving inclusion for people with disabilities, including cognitive and learning disabilities, low vision, and more</a>.

2. fixes sentence structure and PWD terminology

Neither are dangerously wrong if not fixed. I happily leave it to others to determine the appropriateness for this change or not. :)

fyi brief history: we planned to do something like 'supplemental guidance' but didn't know if we would end up calling it that. the link used to go to a section in WCAG 2 Overview that explained that some kind of supplemental guidance was coming. after it existed and when we updated WCAG 2 Overview and The WCAG 2 Documents, that was changed. (to be honest, we forgot about the link from WCAG)

related comment that gets hidden in resolved thread:

alastc
There was (and is) and agreement to link to the COGA supplemental guidance, but I think that's taken care of in the "Layers of guidance" section in WCAG.

shawna-slh
Ah, I didn't realize that a link to [Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities] had been added to that section (last paragraph).
Is it too late to fix the sentence structure? (especially since it's about cognitive disabilities, the irony is unfortunate :) @iadawn fyi

Should we create a new issue for fixing that sentence structure? Or should I just let it go? (I'm fine doing either.)

Should we create a new issue for fixing that sentence structure? Or should I just let it go? (I'm fine doing either.)

@shawna-slh If you want to fix it, create a new issue, otherwise you can just let it go :)

I removed the Normative label since this is clearly part of the introduction and is clearly marked as being non-normative.

One probably minor problem is that the link promises more than the page linked to can hold. There is, for example, currently no low vision guidance. May suggest adapting the link text.

I don't think this is worth publishing an errata for. Don't forget that this link will forever be in use in all the thousands of copies that exist of WCAG, including the W3C's own translations of WCAG.

including the W3C's own translations of WCAG.

just fyi, we are pursuing updates of WCAG translations when appropriate

Discussed on TF call 11/22 and all parties satisfied that we have correct link and that this can be included with republication.

Discussed on TF call 11/22 and all parties satisfied that we have correct link and that this can be included with republication.

In the context of this PR, we agreed that this is non-normative and so can be addressed through errata; in fact, that it does not require a republication or CFC process.