Update Bypass Blocks to match other SC

[bruce-usab]

Add “within a set of web pages” to end of SC. Makes something implicit explicit, and conforms this SC to the 5 (!) other SC.

This is editorial, but touches the normative text. Inconsistency noted on WCAG2ICT TF call 30 April 2026.

Closes #5096

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	805ce13
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/wcag2/deploys/6a8dacab4e3b5a00086394c5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-5097--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
🤖 Make changes	Run an agent on this branch

---

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

[patrickhlauke]

This is editorial, but touches the normative text.

which of course means it'll cause an existential crisis to some folks...

[alastc]

I'm not sure about this, I think there is a difference between bypass blocks and Consistent nav/help.

For the consistency ones, they are scoped to a set of web pages so that the navigation/help can be different between sets of web pages. (But consistent within the set.)

Bypass blocks isn't related to sets of pages, it's about whether certain content is repeated across pages that may or may not be a set. It's about having a link present, but it doesn't have to be in the same place across a set of web pages.

I think this artificially narrows the scope of the SC.

[patrickhlauke]

@alastc it's probably a question of whether or not by virtue of having content that is repeated across multiple pages that needs a bypass mechanism, those multiple pages effectively become a "set" ...

[bruce-usab]

I think I must agree that, linguistically, “blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages” is a wider scope than “blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages [within a set of webpages]” since the second seems to be adding a constraint on the first.

Than is in tension with the general principle of using the same phrasing when the same thing is meant.

My other concern is that if we don’t make this change, then aren’t the navigation/help SC (i.e., 3.2.3, 3.2.6) weakened? Those somehow don't apply when they are repeated on multiple pages not on set of web pages?

[patrickhlauke]

based on @alastc 's concern in #5097 (comment) i'm actually now leaning towards not making this change. left as is, the SC still works fine, while making it explicitly about pages in a set may require contortions like my devil's advocate one above ("are they part of a set by virtue of having those repeated elements that need a bypass?")

[patrickhlauke]

My other concern is that if we don’t make this change, then aren’t the navigation/help SC (i.e., 3.2.3, 3.2.6) weakened? Those somehow don't apply when they are repeated on multiple pages not on set of web pages?

I think the narrower scoping here is important, because for a whole site, you may have different sections (different "sets") with their distinct navigation and features. and removing "within a set of web pages" from 3.2.3 and 3.2.6 would then fail as soon as you compare two pages from different sets but all still part of the same site.