-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
2024‐10‐18
Attendance (13): Alastair Campbell, Patrick Lauke, Giacomo Petri, Bruce Bailey, Francis Storr, Ken Franqueiro, Scott O'Hara, Lori Oakley, Gundula Nieumann, Mike Gower, Fillipo Zorzi, Steve Faulkner, Dan Bjorge
Regrets:
- REVIEW - WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by Oct 24th) ten items sent to AG WG. Backlog will be on AG WG agenda for Tuesday, 10/22.
- W3C WAI staff not available next week
Following our standing agenda, working from the Project Board.
Add note about the scope of 1.4.5 Images of Text (images used rather than text) and example #4021 which was discussed previously. We replaced "The text in an image is reproduced in text" with "The text in an image is also provided as text." Returned to Sent for WG approval.
Update ARIA11 to address issue #1308 led to conversation about scope of changes to address. We kept the scope as-is (small), and Returned to Sent for WG approval.
Add explanation of what "automatic" means in 2.2.2 and 1.4.2, cross-reference #4012 longish conversation thread, would benefit by someone self-assigning for next call. Left in For discussion.
Add more information/links to HTML-related obsolete messages #4027 discussion on message wrt longdesc since, unlike others, the year 2014 is not canonical. From feedback during call, Ken changed message to ...attribute is obsolete in the HTML Living Standard, and was never widely supported. Returned to Sent for WG approval.
Remove ActiveX example #4008 question asked about preference to keep obsolete technics available, but that is not applicable here. PR just removes one paragraph from G10. Several thumbs up, so Promoted to Fully revied.
Add F111 to 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 #4063 add pointer to F111 from Understanding for 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. Promoted to Fully reviewed.
Add explanation of what "automatic" means in 2.2.2 and 1.4.2, cross-reference #4012 has longish conversation thread, and only a few thumbs up. Left in For discussion.
Update 3.3.2 understanding doc and g167 technique #4102 discussed. Patrick self-assigned to present on next call. Left in Drafted.
Maybe remove Example 3 of F2 #4109. Concur on call with removing, Mike volunteered to draft PR. Future topic could include text-decoration: line-through vs del and Scott pointed out the Understanding docs are not up to date on semantics which can be conveyed by CSS. Left in Drafted.
Does the SC 1.4.3 Contrast minimum exception apply to text outside a disabled control? #3725 lead to discussion about UIC, see below, definition being subjective as to label being part of the UIC. Mike will add to WCAG3 parking lot. Left in Drafted.
Suggested additional note for focus-not-obscured #4104 discussion hinged on focus indicator being part of the UIC (or not). Dan noted that not including the focus indicator complicates automated testing for this SC (not that's a determinize factor). Patrick self-assigned to lead group through PR on a future call. Mike will add to WCAG3 parking lot. Left in Drafted.
Tech timeout 20 hours or greater #4058 discussed and closed as not being necessary.
Update Target Size Minimum to add scrollbar example #3966 very nice to have an illustration. Moved to Ready for approval.
Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open discussions.
Giacomo shared CodePen Obscuring element example which implies label as not being part of a component.
One can make arguments either way for label being part of the component. Noted that the normative definition of UIC is very subjective (essentially “would users consider it part of the component?” -- What does this mean? A majority of users? Any 2 users? All users?). If focus indicator is not considered part of component, label would not be part of the component. This issue was also a problem with defining Target Size
label + disabled checklist ...there's arguments that the label isn't part of the UIC. Now, put a border around it ...all of a sudden we can argue the whole thing is a self-contained UIC!
- Re-apply #3939 cleanly against the latest content on main #4042 moved to Fully reviewed. fully reviewed
- Please delete your branches if they are stale.
Scott has not gotten much feedback on updated Reflow Understanding Doc. Please be encouraged to comment.
Backlog 1 year anniversary!
117 items under To do.
I think my retrospective is that I’m satisfied with our productivity at handling smaller issues but think we could maybe use a different process for making incremental progress on “bigger” issues, I don’t think we’ve been as successful at that. I don’t have a better process to propose off the top of my head though.
Other retro feedback: I wanted to specifically give kudos to Ken, I appreciate the work you’ve done since we started to add the Netlify previews and to join us in the group.