Normative change to SC 2.2.2 - replace "information" with "content", rewrite note 3

[patrickhlauke]

There is confusion relating to why the SC uses "information" rather than "content". While there may have been discussions back in the day when this was first drafted (possibly to make a distinction between "decorative" and "non-decorative" content?), the notes and understanding don't bear out this interpretation. Also, logically - if one of the primary aims of the SC is to help users that are distracted/confused by moving/auto-updating content that happens in parallel to other content ... it makes no difference whether that moving/updating stuff is "decorative" or "non-decorative".

In addition, Note 3 is currently almost unreadable (and grammatically wrong at the end as well: "and in many situations could be misleading to do so"?)

This PR proposed a normative change to the SC text itself and Note 3

Closes #3478
Closes #4921

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	00cad36
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/wcag2/deploys/69c5bb092198c60008072d96
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4920--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

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

[awkawk]

This can be clarified in Understanding more easily.

As an aside, is it possible to have a easier-to-read diff for changes in the normative documents? It seems like a blank line or two being deleted makes it necessary to read more deeply to find changes. In this case, the second to last note, which is substantially changed.

[bruce-usab]

Link to 2.2.2 in diff preview for @awkawk et al.

[patrickhlauke]

This can be clarified in Understanding more easily

I'd posit that doing an erratum is clearer than having normative language that says one thing, and then having to explain in the understanding "when we say X, we actually mean Y"

[awkawk]

I'd posit that doing an erratum is clearer than having normative language that says one thing, and then having to explain in the understanding "when we say X, we actually mean Y"

And then when we make that change, every bit or training, tooling, and documentation created around the world to support 2.2.2 will need to be updated, which represents possibly a greater risk to clarity and an important consideration before changing the normative language.

[patrickhlauke]

let's never make any errata or changes ever then, @awkawk ... cast WCAG in amber/carbonite

[awkawk]

Thats not what I'm saying, Patrick. To quote myself: "an important consideration before changing the normative language".

In the case of this particular change, I don't think that it is worth it.