2026–06–19

Minutes from meeting on June 19, 2026

Attendance (7): Baldino Morelli, Bruce Bailey, Patrick H. Lauke, Giacomo Petri, Filippo Zorzi, Ken Franqueiro, Adam Page

Regrets: Gundula Niemann, Scott O'Hara

Announcements

• Bruce: Reminder that we're on the agenda for Tuesday

Misc.

• #4955: Remove G200, tweak G201 to apply to links and buttons, fix association of the technique with appropriate SCs redux
  • Ken: I was discussing this one with Kevin; are we sure we wanted to remove this entirely?
  • Bruce: It's only a best practice
  • Arguably, if a user is clicking a link, they fully intend what to do with it
  • Giacomo: Another concern is that everything that opens in a new tab is reported as a failure by some people, and we didn't want this technique to be misleading in that direction
  • Patrick: By giving examples of when it's okay, it might be interpreted as implying that other instances are not okay
  • Ken: I would like to explicitly mark this as obsolete, as we do not delete pages (only remove links to them). What would we say in an obsolete message?
  • Bruce: Not a fan of putting an obsolete message, it could give the wrong impression
  • Patrick: In favor of wordsmithing an obsolete message, would rather not spend more time adding a note and also trying to remove the parts we don't want
  • G200 is likely an artifact of an earlier time (it existed even in 2.0)
  • Bruce: Could the obsolete message say G200 is superseded by G201?
  • Patrick: Not quite, as those were probably created at the same time. More about the dubious parts and the implication that some auditors draw from it
• Bruce: Very impressed by the range of shorthands available in the WCAG 3 repo; is there any possibility of that in WCAG 2? Being able to use Markdown in WCAG 2 might attract more people to helping with Backlog TF work
  • Ken: Very different build systems based on different static site generators, for different purposes; goal with WCAG 2 was to match existing input format, whereas for WCAG 3 we were able to decide to use Markdown for individual guidelines/provisions from the start
    • Changing the input format across the board would be problematic when there are 90 open PRs
    • Introducing a second format at the same time could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the repo trying to get acclimated
  • Adam: Could we maybe think about using more template partials, etc. for any new techniques?
  • Ken: Possibly; that wasn't a priority at first since the goal was to require little or no changes to existing input files

Drafted

• #5067: Add a cross-reference from 2.4.7 focus visible understanding to 1.4.11 non-text contrast
  • Expands a paragraph under Intent
  • Moved to Ready for Approval
• #5025: Clarify SC 3.3.2 phone number example wording
  • This PR doesn't seem to fully resolve the issue it's intending to close
  • The change in this PR would contradict the start of the example
  • Plan to close the PR with comment
• #5030: Clarify Dismissible paragraph in Understanding SC 1.4.13
  • Like #5025, seems to suggest a deeper problem with the entire Dismissible section that requires more fundamental changes
  • Patrick: Stretch goal might be to include an image to help visualize the issue
  • Plan to close the PR with comment
• #5045: Change the example for 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value understanding
  • Replaces a dated "Java applet" verbal example with a custom widget using HTML and ARIA
  • Moved to Ready for approval