Health expert Jamie Metzl weighs in on coronavirus origins as Republicans pledge to continue investigation on 'Fox News Live. Karl Rove joins Brian Kilmeade in taking stock of what's good about America and analyzing President Biden's handling of the border on 'One Nation. Fox News host Brian Kilmeade puts the freedoms of Americans in perspective and argues Americans spend way too much time criticizing the country on 'One Nation. Princeton University political scientist Lauren Wright, Ph.

citizenship test in part to multiple choice. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, joins 'Fox Report' to discuss the consequences from the Biden administration ending Title 42 amid 'unprecedented' border encounters and illegal crossings. A locally elected Democratic official says the proposed revisions to Washington, D. Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel joins 'Fox News Live' to discuss the history surge in respiratory illnesses in the United States.

Defense attorney and formal prosecutor Robert Schalk joins 'Fox News Live' to discuss an FTX lawsuit against big-name celebrities. But most Americans aren't buying it. Even some progressives want an alternative. The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, Collin Levy, Allysia Finley and Dan Henninger. The hope is that WCAG 3. Research and design work performed by the Silver Task Force identified key requirements needed to improve upon the existing WCAG 2.

X structure. These requirements, presented in the Requirements for Silver document, shaped the guidelines that follow and should be taken into account when evaluating and updating the guidelines. While the majority of guidelines are still to be written and we continue to explore additional ways of validating conformance, we seek wider public review on the approach presented here.

This section with its subsections provides requirements which must be followed to conform to the specification, meaning it is normative. In addition to this section, the Guidelines , Testing , and Conformance sections in WCAG 3. Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as non-normative , diagrams, examples, and notes are informative non-normative.

Non-normative material provides advisory information to help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim. Outcomes are normative. The working group is looking for feedback on whether the following should be normative or informative: guidelines, methods, critical errors, and outcome ratings.

The individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided including functional categories of disabilities, general guidelines, outcomes that can be tested, a rich collection of methods, resource links, and code samples.

These are early drafts of guidelines included to serve as initial examples. They are used to illustrate what WCAG 3. These guideline drafts should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3.

They are included to show how the structure would work. As this draft matures, numbering of individual guidelines will be removed to improve overall usability of the guidelines in response to public requests. WCAG 2. x success criteria will be migrated to this new structure before WCAG 3. As more content is developed, this section will be a list of guidelines with a unique short name, and the text of the requirement written in plain language.

To see the overall plan for migrating content from WCAG 2. Guideline: Provide text alternative for non-text content. Text alternatives how-to. Provides text alternatives for non-text content for user agents and assistive technologies. Outcome, details, and methods for Text alternative available. We selected the Text Alternatives guideline to illustrate how WCAG 2. Most of the material was directly copied from W3C sources such as WCAG 2. There are subtleties to the scoring of the methods that should be noted in this guideline.

We have included four different methods for different types of images in HTML:. The scoring is set up to work across all types of images to make it easier for automated tools. The automated tool does not need to know the type of image and can give you a score of the number of images and the number of images passed. The tester reviewing the path that a user would use to accomplish a task can identify whether the lack of a text alternative is a critical error that would stop a user from completing a task.

This allows an automated tool to do the heavy lifting for identifying all the text alternatives while still allowing a knowledgeable tester to identify and evaluate the images that are necessary to complete a task. This guideline also illustrates an example of critical errors along a path.

Organizations with large numbers of images often have a missing text alternative on an image as a bug. They need to know when that missing text alternative is critical to be fixed, and when it is a lower priority. This critical error example shows how an image without alternative text that is crucial for completing the task gives a rating of zero.

An image without alternative text that is not crucial, such as an image in the footer, does not block the organization from receiving the score the rest of the images deserve.

This makes it possible for very large web sites or apps to be able to conform even if they have a low number of bugs without losing the critical needs of people with disabilities. We are interested in your feedback on this approach to testing and scoring. Are the bands of numbers for the different ratings correct?

Do people with disabilities in particular feel that this approach will meet their needs? For this First Public Working Draft, we included HTML methods. This will be expanded in future drafts. We have also included a method, Author Control of Text Alternatives ATAG , that demonstrates how requirements from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines ATAG 2. Guideline: Use common clear words.

Clear words how-to. Outcome, details, and methods for Common clear words. We selected Use Clear Words to show that the new WCAG3 structure can include accessibility guidance that does not fit into the WCAG 2. x structure. We wanted to select one of those user needs and include it in the first draft of WCAG3 to show that more complex user needs can be included and still be testable and scored.

Use Clear Words is a new guideline proposed by the Cognitive Accessibility Task Force COGA and includes research, documents and comments from COGA.

The selection of user needs and the outcomes necessary to address them is aligned with the new COGA publication, Making content usable for people with cognitive and learning disabilities [coga-usable].

The clear words guideline was included to illustrate that the proposed WCAG 3. Clear words guideline uses a rating scale with flexible units of measure. For example, testing could be done by a webpage, a paragraph, a section of instructions on an application, or other. A manual tester evaluates the paragraph, webpage, or section on a rating scale. While we do not know of any mainstream accessibility tool that measures common words, there are some working prototypes of tools developed outside the W3C.

We are interested in feedback on testing this guideline and its scoring. There are a number of exceptions to this guideline.

We are interested in feedback where to put that information for ease of use. This category of new guideline needs further development. It is included to show that it could work, not necessarily that this is the shape of the final guideline. Guideline: Provide captions and associated metadata for audio content. Captions how-to. Translates speech and non-speech audio into alternative formats e. captions so media can be understood when sound is unavailable or limited. User agents and APIs support the display and control of captions.

Outcome, details, and methods for Translates speech and non-speech audio. Conveys information about the sound in addition to the text of the sound for example, sound source, duration, and direction so users know the necessary information about the context of the sound in relation to the environment it is situated in.

Outcome, details, and methods for Conveys information about the sound. This guideline demonstrates how the WCAG3 structure can be used with emerging technologies such as virtual reality, augmented reality and other immersive web technologies XR. Research in this area is ongoing and we expect to complete more details in future drafts.

The Silver XR group has been working closely with other groups within the W3C as well as researchers in the area of captioning in immersive technologies. This is a rapidly developing field, and the recommendations listed are more exploratory.

They are included as an example that WCAG3 can be used with emerging technologies. We hope that including this guideline will help inspire more research in this area. Because this guideline was included to demonstrate emerging technology, there is little guidance included on traditional captions.

Future drafts will also include more traditional caption guidance. We are looking for feedback on the scoring of captions. Media that is essential to accomplishing the task that does not have captions is a critical error and automatically fails a 0 rating. Examples include educational videos, entertainment site previews, or directions for installing a product. Other videos without captions that are not essential to the task such as advertising and promotional videos that are not essential to shopping experience are not automatically failed, but the cumulative lack of captioning reduces the score.

We want feedback on this approach. We want public feedback about whether Open Captions burned in captions should be considered as equivalent to Closed Captions.

Closed captions are text that can be customized to meet user needs, for example, a hard of hearing person with low vision like a lot of aging people. Open captions are burned in and cannot be customized.

They can't be adapted to other languages. If closed captions are added, then they are overlaid on the Open Captions and hard to read. If we receive sufficient feedback to leave captions as they are today both closed or open are equally acceptable , then we will use a simple scoring rating.

If we decide to not accept open captions as equivalent to closed captions, then we will give more points to closed captions than open. Note that the advanced XR outcomes and metadata do not have critical errors. This is a way that best practices can be included so that they are not punitive, but could give extra points that an organization who implements them could use to potentially raise their score.

We are interested in your feedback about this approach. Guideline: Use sections, headings, and sub-headings to organize content. Structured content how-to. Organizes content into logical blocks with headings relevant to the subsequent content.

This makes locating and navigating information easier and faster. Outcome, details, and methods for Headings organize content. Outcome, details, and methods for Uses visually distinct headings. Outcome, details, and methods for Conveys hierarchy with semantic structure. While WCAG2 addresses headings from the semantic needs of screenreader users, little has been done to directly address the needs of people with cognitive disabilities around headings.

This guideline shows how a well-known area of accessibility can address more user needs of different groups of people with disabilities. The structured content guideline has multiple outcomes working together to cover the different aspects of accessibility needed for different categories of people with disabilities. The structured content guideline began as a guideline on use of headings. Going through the content development process, we realized that it was a broader topic than simply headings, but there is little content developed beyond headings.

Note that this guideline is used for prototyping, and is the most uneven in style of content. Additional outcomes and content will be added in future drafts to make this guideline more complete.

Structured content guideline also shows how several WCAG 2. The scoring shows how the rating can be improved by including all headings, but does not fail the lack of section headings, unless that section heading is essential to accomplishing a task. We think this will allow organizations to continually improve their use of headings without failing them for what was formerly required by an AAA success criterion.

We are looking for feedback on using scoring as a way to encourage adoption of AAA success criteria without failures. Do you like the inclusion of broader needs for structured content than providing semantics for screenreader users?

Do you think this should be a separate guideline, or do you like having multiple, testable outcomes supporting the guideline? Do you like the approach of merging WCAG2 success criteria with related user needs? Guideline: Provide sufficient contrast between foreground text and its background.

Visual contrast of text how-to. Provides adequate luminance contrast between background and text colors to make the text easy to read. Outcome, details, and methods for Luminance contrast between background and text. We propose changing the names of Contrast Minimum and Contrast Enhanced to Visual Contrast of Text as a signal of a paradigm change from one about color to one about perception of light intensity. The reason for this change is that the understanding of contrast has matured and the available research and body of knowledge has made breakthroughs in advancing the understanding of visual contrast.

The proposed new guidance more accurately models current research in human visual perception of contrast and light intensity. The goal is to improve understanding of the functional needs of all users, and more effectively match the needs of those who face barriers accessing content. This new perception-based model is more context dependent than a strict light ratio measurement; results can, for example, vary with size of text and the darkness of the colors or background.

This model is more responsive to user needs and allows designers more choice in visual presentation. It does this by including multi-factor assessment tests which integrate contrast with inter-related elements of visual readability, such as font features. It includes tests to determine an upper limit of contrast, where elevated contrast may impact usability. This outcome will eventually include a second rating approach based on the mean average APCA value for all text in a process and view based on a character count.

Guideline: Provide features that help users avoid errors. Error prevention how-to. Provides instructions for inputs that have data entry requirements for example, required, date, password so users know how to provide valid information. Outcome, details, and methods for Input instructions provided.

An additional outcome, Moderated form completion: Guides data entry, provides validation, and moderates form completion so users can avoid data entry errors, is under development. Details will be posted when available. Critical errors and scoring for the Input instructions provided outcome are also under development.

We are working to determine how to put the requirement into normative text. The Error Prevention guideline is a combination of WCAG 2. For WCAG 2. We drew on WCAG 2. To identify requirements beyond those specified in WCAG 2. We then elaborated those scenarios to explore and define features that help prevent errors and help users recover from errors.

We defined common user needs related to errors, such as "User needs instructions for inputs that have data entry requirements so they can enter data in the correct format.

We summarized functional needs in the Error User Needs Worksheet Google Sheet and used those as the basis for defining guidelines, outcomes, and methods. The guidelines, outcomes, and methods related to errors are not complete. However, we would like your feedback on the structure and approach to defining accessibility guidelines with this user-first approach.

Does the user journey approach make sense as a way of defining accessibility features? Are the methods clear in how they help achieve the outcome? Are the tests understandable and straightforward? For this 3rd Public Working Draft, we include three methods to support the outcome of Input instructions provided for the Error Prevention guideline, which focuses on preventing errors from occurring.

We are still working on additional outcomes and methods. We are also working on a guideline for Error Notification that will address outcomes and methods related to helping users recover from errors. We hope to include the remaining Error Prevention content and the complete Error Notification guideline in the 4th Public Working Draft, due out in December Some content will meet outcomes if it passes atomic tests, but that content still might not be usable by all people with disabilities. Holistic tests can help you fix that.

The model presented provides a structure for testing that can be built upon to better accommodate dynamic or very frequently updated content than WCAG 2. We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.

Outcomes are written as testable criteria that allow testers to objectively determine if the content they are evaluating satisfies the criteria.

Testing outcomes uses both views and processes to define what is being tested. Views include all content visually and programmatically available without a substantive change. Conceptually, it corresponds to the definition of a web page as used in WCAG 2. X, but is not restricted to content meeting that definition. For example, a view could be considered a "screen" in a mobile app.

When testing processes, the content used to complete the process as well as all of the associated views need to be included in the test. A process is a subset of a view or a group of views. It includes only the sections of the view needed to accomplish the activity or task. A process is comprised of one or more views. Testing the outcomes using the atomic tests might involve a combination of automated evaluation , semi-automated evaluation , and human evaluation.

Although content may satisfy all outcomes using the atomic tests, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. The holistic tests address this gap by evaluating more of the user experience than atomic testing. We are looking for more appropriate terms to distinguish between these two types of tests and welcome suggestions. Atomic tests evaluate content, often at an object level, for accessibility. Atomic tests include the existing tests that support A, AA, and AAA success criteria in WCAG 2.

They also include tests that may require additional context or expertise beyond tests that fit within the WCAG 2. In WCAG 3. Test results are then aggregated across the selected views. Critical errors within selected processes are also totaled. Successful results of the atomic tests are used to reach a Bronze rating. Atomic tests may be automated or manual. Automated evaluation can be completed without human assistance.

These tests allow for a larger scope to be tested but automated evaluation alone cannot determine accessibility. Over time, the number of accessibility tests that can be automated is increasing, but manual testing is still required to evaluate most methods at this time.

Holistic tests include assistive technology testing, user-centered design methods, and both user and expert usability testing. Holistic testing applies to the entire declared scope and often uses the declared processes to guide the tests selected. Successful results of holistic tests are used to reach a silver or gold rating. Future drafts will further explore holistic tests and provide examples as well as detail how to apply them. Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies.

Each method contains tests and techniques for satisfying the outcome. The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies that do not have related methods based solely on the outcome.

We continue to test this approach and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, and complexity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve the scoring to better meet these criteria. One of the goals of WCAG 3. We have included tests within the sample outcomes that demonstrate alternatives such as rubrics and scales.

We are also exploring integrating these options into Accessibility Conformance Testing format. We will include example tests in a future draft. Our intent is to include detailed tests for methods to support each outcome within the WCAG 3.

Each outcome has methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains tests and techniques for meeting that outcome. Testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies that do not have related methods based on the outcome. A rating scale may be provided for some tests to allow the tester to assign a quality judgement of an element or block of content. Rating scales work better when the unit being tested does not have clear boundaries, when evaluating success requires a quality judgement, or when the test includes gradations of quality.

Each of these results can then be assigned a percentage or averaged to inform the overall score of an outcome. In addition, critical errors within selected processes will be identified and totaled. Any critical errors will result in score of very poor 0.

The results from the atomic tests are aggregated across views and used along with the number of critical errors to assign an adjectival rating to the outcome. Testers will then use the guidance provided in the outcome along with reasonable judgement of the context that the errors occur in to assign an accessibility score of the outcome.

These thresholds are still being tested and adjusted. These are included as examples to gather feedback on this scoring approach. After all outcomes have been scored, the ratings are averaged for a total score and a score by the functional category ies they support. Conformance at the bronze level requires no critical errors and at least 3. This approach, which allows the tester some flexibility in assigning scores, has the advantage of simplicity and allowing a tester to take the context into account beyond the simple percentages.

The second option we are exploring is to carry percentages from tests through to a final score. This number would likely shift as we continue testing.

A footnote in Microsoft's submission opens in new tab to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority CMA has let slip the reason behind Call of Duty's absence from the Xbox Game Pass library: Sony and Activision Blizzard have a deal that restricts the games' presence on the service.

The footnote appears in a section detailing the potential benefits to consumers from Microsoft's point of view of the Activision Blizzard catalogue coming to Game Pass. What existing contractual obligations are those? Why, ones like the "agreement between Activision Blizzard and Sony," that places "restrictions on the ability of Activision Blizzard to place COD titles on Game Pass for a number of years".

It was apparently these kinds of agreements that Xbox's Phil Spencer had in mind opens in new tab when he spoke to Sony bosses in January and confirmed Microsoft's "intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard". Unfortunately, the footnote ends there, so there's not much in the way of detail about what these restrictions are or how long they'd remain in effect in a potential post-acquisition world.

Given COD's continued non-appearance on Game Pass, you've got to imagine the restrictions are fairly significant if they're not an outright block on COD coming to the service. Either way, the simple fact that Microsoft is apparently willing to maintain any restrictions on its own ability to put first-party games on Game Pass is rather remarkable, given that making Game Pass more appealing is one of the reasons for its acquisition spree.

The irony of Sony making deals like this one while fretting about COD's future on PlayStation probably isn't lost on Microsoft's lawyers, which is no doubt part of why they brought it up to the CMA.

While it's absolutely reasonable to worry about a world in which more and more properties are concentrated in the hands of singular, giant megacorps, it does look a bit odd if you're complaining about losing access to games while stopping them from joining competing services. We'll find out if the CMA agrees when it completes its in-depth, "Phase 2" investigation opens in new tab into the Activision Blizzard acquisition, which is some way off yet. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with poring over these kinds of corporate submissions for more interesting tidbits like this one.

So far, we've already learned that Microsoft privately has a gloomy forecast for the future of cloud gaming opens in new tab , and that the company thinks Sony shouldn't worry so much since, hey, future COD games might be as underwhelming as Vanguard opens in new tab. Who knows what we'll learn next? Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors.

One of Josh's first memories is of playing Quake 2 on the family computer when he was much too young to be doing that, and he's been irreparably game-brained ever since. His writing has been featured in Vice, Fanbyte, and the Financial Times. He'll play pretty much anything, and has written far too much on everything from visual novels to Assassin's Creed. His most profound loves are for CRPGs, immersive sims, and any game whose ambition outstrips its budget. He thinks you're all far too mean about Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Open menu Close menu PC Gamer PC Gamer THE GLOBAL AUTHORITY ON PC GAMES. opens in new tab opens in new tab opens in new tab opens in new tab opens in new tab opens in new tab. US Edition.

News Reviews Hardware Best Of Magazine The Top Forum More PCGaming Show Podcasts Coupons Newsletter SignUp Community Guidelines Affiliate Links Meet the team About PC Gamer. Popular WoW: Dragonflight Darktide Midnight Suns Holiday gifts Warzone 2. Audio player loading….

PC Gamer Newsletter Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors. Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors. Joshua Wolens. See comments.

In our example, there was a branch "experimental" created after the commit with branch "beforeSplit", and the same file was changed both in the "master" and in the "experimental" branch. To do this, double-click on the file in the Unstaged Changes pane. We invite comment on these options as well as suggestions for an alternative solution. Do you think things in the United States are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? The structured content guideline began as a guideline on use of headings. Paul Getty Trust. When changes are committed to the local repository, the branch is automatically updated to point to the newly created commit.

Categories:

• Forex Brokers
• Binary Options online
• Forex Bitcoin
• Binary Options
• Forex