Meeting minutes
<PhilDay> ?
regrets for next week
Announcements
This Tuesday AG call is for conclusion of their review.
Feedback so far has been thin.
maryjom: Always a bit concerning not to get more feed back.
… Mike Gower has comment on Dragging movement
… if not further AG feedback, then 4 SC considered approved and closed.
… We have 3 SC and definitions for the next AGWG review, several weeks from now...
… but that includes closed functionality.
Looking to publish in March.
Chuck: When I send out work item for AGWG, I will include more details and request for prompt and substantive response.
maryjom: We just want their due diligentce.
<mitch11> I'm available
maryjom: Polls for attendance next week.
<PhilDay> I am unavailable next week
<Bryan_Trogdon> I'm available
RESOLUTION: meeting next week 12/14
<PhilDay> Returning on 4th Jan
<Chuck> +1 Back Jan 4th
maryjom: Asks about 12/4.
<mitch11> I'm not back January 4. I'll be back for the 11th.
<Chuck> +1 Excited to meet the 4th!
<Bryan_Trogdon> Back by the 4th
<olivia> +1 to the 4th
<Sam> not sure
RESOLUTION: Next meeting after 12/14 is 1/4/2024
maryjom: Look for some items from me on alternative proposals.
Remaining definitions, and Public Comments.
maryjom: We still have Public Comments with no one assigned.
Project status and standup
maryjom: I have started a spreadsheet listing 5 unassigned and there are others waiting response
… I have three pending answer, but I am working on that.
… Mitch is still working one issue
… mike pluke has one open, so I will ping him.
… Please assign yourself items, an issuse with public comment flag and not assigned
maryjom: We discussed 338 last week, but any progress since?
PhilDay: I have not progressed that but will ping commenters.
maryjom: We have some draft for every new piece, so those are started, but pending others like 442.
maryjom: Public comments are where we need feedback.
mitch11: Issue 200 on Closed Functionality i split. Please need more conversation, perhaps off line call.
… previous conversaiton with Mary Jo was helpful.
Survey results: Review of SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) proposed updates
maryjom: This is Phil's and he has to drop early, so want his feedback.
<maryjom> Link to survey: https://
Bruce: Survey results are now public facing, so that is good, but I think a change?
maryjom: Reviews survey results, folks +1 Olivia's edits
maryjom: Mitch asked for more time because few notes reflect CSS Pixel which is sill an open issue.
… from survey is "CSS pixel can NOT be applied" correct?
… proposes a minimum physical size but it might be feasible to defer to more device-specific standard
… finger tip size is not the only issue / consideration for target size...
maryjo gives example of TV which is not typically a touch device, but target size still an issue.
maryjom: Notes seem very similar.
<Chuck> bruce: Administrative, it seems to me that the survey results are public facing. That's good, but different from before.
Sam Ogami: I don't agree there is good evidence that angle approach from CSS Pixel is an appropriate reponse....
… lacking evidence, I recommend we keep note about CSS Pixel being applicable.
Chuck: I have a concern from a different perspective, that we are outside of scope, that this group is exceeding remit
maryjom: I agree we should not say what the non-CSS pixel metric should be, but we might still point out the difficulty.
mitch11: If research is needed, the problem is the same as with WCAG.
Sam: Where there is equivalence, fine. But we are pushing boundaries if there is not an obvious equivalence. I still have concerns.
maryjom: Lets try and tease a part abit. First two notes exist as part of CSS Pixel definition, so do we need to include those?
Phil asked for clarification on which notes. Mary Jo clarifies referring to first two notes in issue, numerically note 4 and 5 at present.
PhilDay: Agree that we do not need to repeat, but still important to at least refer back.
maryjom: We should we do that for each SC which references CSS Pixel then.
… My concern is being duplicative. Proposed note 4 (in issue) is almost identical to note 1 in current wcagict draft.
<PhilDay> +1 to drop note 4, and just refer to CSS pixels
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I think alastair is familiar with research, and may be able to provide insite if that would assist us.
Phil is okay with dropping note 4 then.
Chuck: Alastair is available as resource, and followed the research at the time.
mitch11: It is still so counter-intuitive that "CSS pixel" has nothing to do with CSS. I propose we resolve in our definition for CSS Pixel.
<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask if Sam can check CSS pixels to see if it has sufficient notes already
mitch11: if we carve out "viewing distance" then NOT carve it out for each SC, but in definition.
PhilDay: That makes sense to me. Hopefully Sam can become comfortable with that approach.
maryjom: I think we can go forward by pointing to CSS Pixel definition and have single note about viewing distance.
Sam: Saying "see CSS definition" we need to emphasis to really read it. Which I will do again. Instinct will be for readers to just ignore.
… there are still issues with applying it.
<Sam> sure
MaryJo asks Sam to take another read, and Sam agrees.
maryjom: I want to defer Note 5 (in issue) until another conversation with Phil (who is out next week).
maryjom: Note 6, about TVs not being a touch interface but still having concern for target size, is fair but still needs some more word smithing.
maryjom: Note 6 still needs further though.
mitch11: Agreed, and adding "fingertip size for example" helps.
… Bit about needing something when CSS not applicable, but we need to solve concern with CSS Pixel before finishing Note 6.
maryjom: We still are a bit wrapped around the axel around CSS pixel, so workshop these notes more.
SamO: One of the reasons that we dropped back to physical was because of fingers size and phones and reading research WCAG uses...
… on computer screens, makes sense since targets find enough for mouse pointer...
… We have triad that works, but for larger form factors, 24 CSS pixel might not make sense.
… even though it works for some things, can't be confident it works outside of touch UI.
maryjom: Okay, so maybe not be about how SC was developed for UI where finger touch is reasonable expectation.
… remote on big screen tv, 24 px might be much too small or much too large.
<Chuck> While the Success Criterion primarily helps touch users by providing target sizing to prevent accidental triggering of adjacent targets, it is also useful for mouse or pen users. It reduces the chances of erroneous activation due to either a tremor or reduced precision, whether because of reduced fine motor control or input imprecision.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to read a passage from the understanding doc
mitch11: If the WCAG research did not address for pointers on TVs, that is a gap and problem for WCAG. One can have web browser on large screen displays.
mitch11: It is a problem for WCAG, not just WCAG2ICT.
Chuck reads from Understanding.
<Sam> agree
maryjom: I agree this seems to be gap for WCAG. Thinking about eye gaze.
We should open WCAG 2 issue.
Chuch mentions there is a task force
<Chuck> bruce: Anything normative in that task force will take a long time to come around. If we feel this is an issue, it should be escalated.
<Chuck> bruce: The TF is working to avoid normative content.
maryjom: We need to open issue and I will coordinate with Chuck.
Chuck: However logs the issue, please ping me directly.
maryjom: This is example of why WCAG2ICT activity valueable.
Survey results: Review of draft for SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help//
maryjom: Notes we only have 8 minutes
<maryjom> https://
Question 3: Relevance of 3.2.6 Consistent Help to SC Problematic for Closed Functionality
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 3.2.6 Consistent Help to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
<Sam> +1
In survey, 7 answers, all concure with draft as proposed in survey
<mitch11> +1
<maryjom> +1
<olivia> +1
RESOLUTION: Do not add a bullet for 3.2.6 Consistent Help to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality section.
Project status and standup
Question 2: Are more guidance notes needed?
<maryjom> https://
Survey results: Review of draft for SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help//
maryjom: 6/7 okay with proposal, Mitch had a suggetion.
maryjom: Seems more like a technique?
mitch11: No, we are saying documents can link to documents and software other software...
… word substituion fails app linking to web page.
mitch11: We might ignore, since only applicable to sets of software.
maryjom: This is only for specific types of help,
maryjom: pretty common for software to have consitant help
<Chuck> bruce: If Mitch noticed it, I think we should have a note about it. Might help to link offsite to web page.
mitch11: Note is cleaner than messing with word substitution
<maryjom> Note: Help might link to a website or web page.
maryjom: Is that it?
mitch11: I will draft a note
maryjom: I will add to survey. Lots to talk about. Probably I will reopen survey.
… good to read others comments.