– DRAFT –
AGWG-2023-05-09

WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

Announcements

<dmontalvo> Rachael: We will be pausing most WCAG3 work for a few weeks as we finish work on WCAG2.2

<dmontalvo> ... I ask people to review the surveys ahead of time

<dmontalvo> Alastair: If anyone is interesting in testing for WCAG2.2 please get in touch with me directly or with the Chairs list

WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

WCAG 2.2 WCAG 2 Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results

Question 1 - Rewrite technique C40 and associated example per discussion in #3026

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Rewrite techinque C40

<dmontalvo> ... 33112 updates techniques C40 and C41

<dmontalvo> ... Everyone agreed with these updates, just /questions/suggestions received

<dmontalvo> Alastair: There was a note around not to set outline:none when shadow box is used

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq35

<dmontalvo> Dan: There is also other options that I have seen, but that's reasonable.

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#3112

<dmontalvo> ... The word "solid" is to tackle examples of focus and color that we discussed before

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3112 to address issue 3026.

<mbgower> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Rachael> +1

<mgifford> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<LoriO_> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Makoto> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3112 to address issue 3026.

Question 2 - Add 'In brief' section at start of 2.2 SCs #2905

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq35

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq36

<dmontalvo> Chuck:

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#2905

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Any concerns with Patrick's adjustments?

<dmontalvo> Mike: That would make the autohr information cumulative through the AAA SC

<dmontalvo> ... I would like to avoid doing that, otherwise they are going to get bigger

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Agree. There needs to be a line as to how comprehensive we get

<dmontalvo> Alastair: People quite often will be landing on an understanding document without the context of the other SCs

<dmontalvo> ... If we can keep it short, such as "don't make people memorize or transcribe"

<dmontalvo> Mike: My suggestion is to leave this as is for onw and start exploring the 2.1 to see what we should do

<alastairc> seeing how it goes with the 2.1 SCs works for me.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say my "no" is not very strong or passionate

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest additional DD

<dmontalvo> Chuck: I am not particularly pasionate one way or the other, I am persuaded by your suggestion

<dmontalvo> Bruce: Love this. It might be good to add mentions that there is a stricter criterion

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Alastair,a re you happy with Mike's suggestion to leave as is?

<dmontalvo> Alastair: That's fine, and we can mention it to Patrick

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2905 to add an "in brief" section.

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> Bruce - the AA version is linked just below the In brief selection

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 Love the approach

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mbgower> +1

<mgifford> +1

<alastairc> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<LoriO_> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Rachael> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2905 to add an "in brief" section.

Question 3 - G219 title for 2.5.7 Dragging Movement is misleading #3128

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq37

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Patrick opened issue and put updates in PR 3133

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#3128

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3133/files

<dmontalvo> Mike: I find the wording awkward. It is hard to parse

<dmontalvo> Greg: Agree with a little editorial. Draging movements that do not provide a single pointer method would be a failure

<dmontalvo> ... As to the title, I think removing the single pointer part would be OK as it is all explained below

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on single pointer

<dmontalvo> Alastair: The change to the failure was very minor, interesting comment from Greg

<dmontalvo> ... Whether something is single pointer or not is not directly on the dragging aspect

<dmontalvo> ... The dragging may or may not be single pointer

<dmontalvo> .. I think it is currently accurate, potentially it could be better, but for the failure technique the alternative needs to be a single pointer method without dragging

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that I don't think it's necessary to specific single

<mbgower> Ensuring an alternative to dragging movements

<dmontalvo> Mike: What I just pasted seems to be fine. I don't think we have to specify in the title though

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- just trying for plainer language -- change "Dragging movements due to not providing" to "Dragging movements that do not provide "

<dmontalvo> Greg: I just typed my suggestions.

<Chuck> +1 to Gregg's parsing

<dmontalvo> ... Current is difficult to parse, I'd be fine anyway

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg’s language

<Makoto> +1 to Gregg's plainer language

<dmontalvo> Mike: That is the standard way all techniques are written

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Alastair if there's been amendments

<dmontalvo> Chuck: I see you have been doing some moving around, not sure if there are amendments to this

<GreggVan> withdraw my suggestion

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say AH I see maybe put in quotee

<dmontalvo> Alastair: One that Greg was suggessting and another that Mike suggested.

<mbgower> Failure of Success Criterion 2.5.7 due to not providing a single pointer...

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest a link to the SC

<dmontalvo> Greg: Now I understand. Maybe we should put parenthesis around "dragging movements". If we do so I would withdraw my suggestion

<dmontalvo> Mike: You should take out the first "dragging movement" Alastair

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3133 to address issue 3128.

<Jaunita_George> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<alastairc> +1

<LoriO_> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Makoto> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<alastairc> Failure of Success Criterion 2.5.7 due to not providing a single pointer method for the user to operate a function that does not require a dragging movement

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3133 to address issue 3128.

<mbgower> ...that uses a dragging movement

<dmontalvo> [Word-smithing from screen shared contend]

Question 4 - Rewrite OTP section in Accessible Authentication understanding #3150

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq38

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say let's settle on either OTC or OTP!

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Wilco created 3095 about one time codes and how we can explain them in the understanding doc. Patrick created PR 3150 to explain it.

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#3095

<dmontalvo> Mike: Not sure if this is OTC or OTP (code or password)

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3150/files

<dmontalvo> Alastair: I think we are using "one time passcode"

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Does this change anything?

<dmontalvo> Mike: I don't think so

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095.

<dmontalvo> Greg: I just did a search and "OTC" did not appear anywhere in this PR

<dmontalvo> Alastair: For context, one time passcodes that you get from a separate device and you have to type them in is one of the reasons why Coga brought this as an issue

<dmontalvo> ... That has improved as now you can copy paste, but as long as you have to type them in it continues to be an issue

<GreggVan> +1 to this SC and this improved description

<dmontalvo> ... That is donw to accessibility supported

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention "one time password" is more common term

<dmontalvo> ... IF you are in a close environment you may work around it, if you are in an open environment it may be not that apparent

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Chuck> propse RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095.

<dmontalvo> Bruce: It seems "password" is the more popular term instead of "passcode"

<mbgower> +1

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I have a mild preference for passcode

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck> +1

<alastairc> +1

<dmontalvo> Mike: +1 I will do more digging and come back with a future PR if needed

<dmontalvo> Greg: "Passcode" is an interesting combination, I think people will recognize it

<dmontalvo> Lori: Using "passcode" or "password" due to the second stage verification that is going on, "passcode" is different than "password'. "Passcode" is that thing you get on the phone to make sure you are who you say you are

<mgifford> Looking at Google Trends - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&geo=CA&q=%22pass%20code%22,%22pass%20word%22,password,passcode&hl=en

<kirkwood> +1 to Lori

<dmontalvo> Greg: I think some orgs give you one-time passcodes that are numbers and letters

<kirkwood> passcodes are usually supplied to you (for a limited time).

<dmontalvo> Lori: But these are CAPTCHA-like codes that we have flagged as insecure and potentially not accessible some times

<laura> password vs. passcode: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/password-vs-passcode

<dmontalvo> ... The passcodes that I am thinking of are the ones that you first use your regular password and then you have a second code either mailed or in your mobile phone

<dmontalvo> John: "Verification code" is what I see in second factor authentication

<dmontalvo> Alastair: I think what wwe are facing is different orgs calling it different things

<LoriO_> 1+ John

<kirkwood> passwords are often created by user

<dmontalvo> ... It's a bunch of characters that you are given and you then have to put them in your computer

<dmontalvo> ... It may be useful for us to differentiate this from "passwords"

<bruce_bailey> https://www.google.com/search?q=%22one+time+passcode%22 409K versus https://www.google.com/search?q=%22one+time+password%22 ~8.5 million

<dmontalvo> ... I suggest that we accept what we got at the moment

<Rachael> +1 to putting a pin in it and circling back

<Chuck> +1 pinning

<dmontalvo> Greg: Agree with what Alastair just said. If we make it so that it only applies to passwords it is like we are missing half the process

<mgifford> Passkey, passphrase, PIN's... Could we say, "passwords and additional security inputs"

<dmontalvo> ... I think letters and numbers can be "code" as well

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say verification code has more traction https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=one%20time%20passcode,one%20time%20password,verification%20code

<alastairc> This specific update is on the topic of one-time-pass-thingies

<GreggVan> +1

<dmontalvo> Mike: I'll take it to do some more digging. I think we should continue with what we have for now

<bruce_bailey> +1 to "verification code"

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095.

<dmontalvo> Rachael: Appreciated. I would also like to see "verification code" in there, having these different words will make it more readable. Currently it is difficult to process as these two are very similar

<mbgower> +1

<GreggVan> +1 to verification code

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Rachael> +1 and keep improving from there

<LoriO_> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<JSherrod> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3150 to address issue 3095.

Question 5 - Loophole in 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)? #3045

<LoriO_> we need to not drop addressing verification codes

<GreggVan> (PIN) stands for NUMBER and is confusing when applied to codes that are letters and numbers

<alastairc> LoriO_ - create a github issue if you are worried we'll drop it, but mbgower is on it.

<dmontalvo> Chuck: Patrick created 3045 about lack of a minimum for taget size when we include spacing. He included subsequent updates and people seem to agree with those

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq39

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755.

<bruce_bailey> w3c/wcag#3103

<dan_bjorge> +1, patrick did a great job with this, contains a ton of work

<bruce_bailey> +1 for hat tip to Patrick!

<Rachael> +1 thank you Patrick!

<dmontalvo> Alastair: This is one example of a huge amount of work Patrick does even though he cannot attend meetings regularly. Thanks Patrick

<laura> +1 to Patrick and all he does.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Rachael> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<laura> +1

<JSherrod> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Makoto> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<mgifford> +1

<mbgower> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3103 to address issue 3045 and 2755.

<Detlev> +1

Questions 6 and 7

<dmontalvo> Alastair: There are a couple I assumed would take longer

<dmontalvo> ... We will leave these for next week

<dmontalvo> ... There is a technique for "Focus not obscure" which you may want to have a look at

<dmontalvo> ... I will update the survey and add a preview link so that it is easier to review

<dmontalvo> ... We have another open issue for "focs not obscure" on whether it could create keyboard issues

<dmontalvo> ... Most of it we have addressed, there are some bits that we still need to figure out

<dmontalvo> ... There is a WCAG2x backlog as well

<dmontalvo> ... We are almost at the end of the WCAG2.2 issues

<dmontalvo> ... IF there is not enough fforom WCAG2.2 we will add these WCAG2.x backlog issues as well

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Q on Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) Understanding

<dmontalvo> Bruce: Should we have less tolerance for lightboxes or other diminishing of contrasts in "focus obscure (enhanced)"

<dmontalvo> Mike: I think this got copied over from the other SC

<alastairc> w3c/wcag#3163

<dmontalvo> ... Do you want to strip that out?

<dmontalvo> Alastair: You ahve until Thursday

<dmontalvo> Mike: We have minimum and enhanced for "focus obscured"

Use of GitHub

<alastairc> w3c/wcag

<dmontalvo> Alastair: WCAG2.x part of the repository for the WCAG2.x

<dmontalvo> ... W3C has hundreds of repos

<dmontalvo> ... We have a separate one for WCAG3

<dmontalvo> ... We have guidelines, understanding documents, techniques, and the rest you can figure it out

<dmontalvo> ... We have issues as well. Anything WCAG2.2-related has a WCAG2.2 tag

<dmontalvo> ... You can search for issues and PRs that include the label or you can search excluding the label

<dmontalvo> ... If you ahve a W3C account and you are a member of this group you should have automatic permissions to create branches, assign yourself to issues, etc

<dmontalvo> ... Anyone in the world can create issues

<dmontalvo> [Alastair shows an issue created by Mark about a specific technique]

<dmontalvo> Alastair: From that issue, someone created a PR to address it

<dmontalvo> ... Others have suggestions, which may or may not be accepted

<dmontalvo> ... IF we strongly disagree with the issue, we put a response in a comment explaining why we disagree with it

<dmontalvo> ... Once that is done, we can add labels like "survey"

<dmontalvo> ... We do not use GitHub for these agreement processes

<dmontalvo> ... It is difficult to make it work only for group participants, and the survey gives us the opportunity to introduce the topics more broadly

<bruce_bailey> RRSAgent: draft minutes

<dmontalvo> ... Normatie content follows a very official process under W3C

<dmontalvo> ... If we pass CR for WCAG2.2, that would be the last update

<dmontalvo> ... Non-normative change we can agree on within the group

<dmontalvo> [Alastair focuses on conversations tab of the GitHub PR interface]

<dmontalvo> Alastair: Key words are used to mark an issue as solved once the PR is merged

<dmontalvo> [Alastair discusses unified and split views]

<dmontalvo> Alastair: IF there are changes within a paragraph it will highlight these, although it does not always work

<Rachael> +1 to closing meeting and informal chat for anyone as needed

<bruce_bailey> +1 to end meeting

<kirkwood> +1