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

Update from target size min #2858

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

alastc
Copy link
Contributor

@alastc alastc commented Dec 19, 2022

This PR aligns the older AAA target-size with the newer AA version, for the "inline exception".

The old definition is essentially: The target is in a sentence, or multiple sentences. (Because the definition of "block of text" is one or more sentences.)

The new one is better, but slightly different.

This would be a normative change. As things stand, IF this were approved, it would go into the errata page for WCAG 2.2 and 2.1, and the editors draft, but would not appear on the front of WCAG unless it was re-published.

Closes #2857


Preview | Diff

Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 22, 2024

Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 51d577d
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/673eedd53fd4df00084bbeeb
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-2858--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@mbgower mbgower added Normative ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation Editorial labels Nov 21, 2024
@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed on TF call 11/22. Concurrence on edit, and already highlighted in email to AG.

@dbjorge
Copy link
Contributor

dbjorge commented Dec 3, 2024

-1 from me. This is a backwards-incompatible normative change; this erratum would mean that some cases will pass in 2.2+errata which would have failed under 2.2 without errata (ie, in 2.2 as referenced in some legislation).

I agree that it's frustrating that they're inconsistent, but I think backwards compatibility is more important than consistency.

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 Normative
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Errata for 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) to align with 2.5.8
5 participants