Meeting minutes
Updates
<JJ> Github issues overview: https://
<Jamie> +1 to Quinton's suggestion
ACTION: Create issues for the Success Criteria before the meeting for them starts
https://
Detlev: there is an ongoing discussion about keyboard accessibility, should be discuss it in the frame of this call?
Detlev: would be interesting to build consensus around those practices
jj: can be discussed in the frame of the "guidance setup" agendum
jj: for now go through all the SC, and then see where discussion is happening
jj: will take a couple of months to go through all the SC
jj: special points can be brought to the agenda to be discussed
jj: discussions to improve the process and to make it quicker
jj: 10 weeks to go though all SC
<Jamie> 10 weeks just for AA
<Jamie> I mean A
jj: meeting minutes for all the previous meetings are available in the calendar
<JJ> Past MATF meetings with minutes: https://
<JJ> Be right back...
<JJ> Back (laptop lost power)
jamie: use the call to talk about discussions that happened in smaller settings
jamie: focus more on update from smaller groups
jamie: split the tasks among sub-groups
<Detlev> +1 to Jamie
jamie: possibility to split by principles
<Joe_Humbert> original work statement: https://
jj: groups could be done based on interests
jamie: draft from 2018 still refers to 2.0, could be updated to 2.1 and 2.2
jamie: goal could be to have a draft for the end of the year
jj: finish A an AA by september
<Jamie> ^ that last one was a question, what was the goal?
jj: agree, we should work on a draft
jj: SC from 2.1 and 2.2 have not yet been discussed
jj: we should restructure the way of working a little bit
quintinb: github issue for all the tickets, have a checklist for each SC to know if they have reached a critical mass
<Detlev> +1 to quintinb
quintinb: might take a bit of time to facilitate
<Jamie> +1 to Quinton
<Jamie> *Quintin
detlev: same as quintinb
Joe_Humbert: check doc from 2018, tickets to know what do we wanna keep
<JJ> https://
Joe_Humbert: what would be the new structure, like the previous? like WCAG2ICT? sth else? we cannot start without structure
Joe_Humbert: we need to speed things up
jj: use the W3C tool for official doc, take a look how to use the tool
jj: 2.1.1 will be for the next meeting
agendum+
1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics - Level A
<quintinb> Do we have any bad examples of failures of 1.3.3 failures?
<quintinb> Sorry examples of failures
<quintinb> They don't have to be bad
<quintinb> I suppose line charts are good examples here
jj: don't see this happening too often. Tabbar without text, where the selected tab has another color.
<quintinb> I like the Tab Bar example
<quintinb> Android charts are a nightmare
jj: not so many charts, Android charts are difficult to make accessible
<quintinb> SongBirdCharts is a good resource if folks are interested, but it's old
GleidsonRamos: link with iOT, control the lights of the house. Use sensory characterictits to show if sth is on or off
jj: if you are blind, could be difficult to know if the lights are on or off
<quintinb> I love https://
<quintinb> agree to adding haptics
<quintinb> to the list
Joe_Humbert: what we could add to this def is haptic feedback, it is a sensory characteristic.
Joe_Humbert: more used on mobile devices as on desktop
jj: open list, haptics could be on this list
jj: cannot think of any example where there is only haptics
jj: maybe there are some examples there
<quintinb> I think it's still good to add because devs may not realise that not all devices have haptics
<quintinb> or even haptics enabled
Where ICT is non-web software that provides a user interface, it shall satisfy the WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.3.3
Sensory Characteristics
AlainVagner: in EN 301 549 they haven't added anything to this criterion
<Joe_Humbert> it could be as simple as just an matf note to 1.3.3 to specifically mention haptics?
Detlev: in the european Norm there are some SC in section 5 about physical characteristics
https://
Detlev: we could check those things, in table A.2 for mobile apps
<Jamie> +1 to Joe
jj: could be a note
jamie: should be thinking about adding techniques? they are not available in the WCAG understanding document
jj: techniques are meant for the web.
jamie: could we push to have more inclusive techniques
jamie: our document could include techniques, at least discuss how haptics could be used in an accessible way
jamie: in a non prescriptive way but as a guidance
jj: could be difficult on the same document, but could be done
Joe_Humbert: reach out to WCAG3 group, working on this kind of stuff, we could reuse the existing work
Joe_Humbert: things that we could review and fill the gaps
jj: WCAG 3 transforming to be more platform agnostic
jj: outcomes more platform agnostic
<Jamie> https://
jj: agree would be great to learn if they are really considering native mobile
jj: setup a meeting with WCAG2ICT, to discuss issues raised in our group, like set of software
<Jamie> WCAG 3.0 does include haptics
jj: see how we could backport some of our guidance to WCAG2ICT
<Jamie> WCAG2ICT should realistically have haptics as well
jj: more collaboration is needed here with the other groups, as mentioned in our work statement
detlev: active in WCAG3. just good to know that it will take some time. Not yet at the stage where they are writing techniques. the active group is quite small
Detlev: good to do sth on techniques, if there is a clear way to test on mobile
<Jamie> sth?
*something
(sorry globish abbreviation)
jj: agrees
Detlev: other groups want to avoid scope creep
jj: would be nice to reach consensus on some SC
<Jamie> can we move to the next agenda item?
jj: mentions appt.org and ?? other resources
agendum+
agendum+
jj: the examples of "essential" are outdated
<Jamie> +1 to JJ that the examples in WCAG are not essential
<quintinb> Should this be AA? I would argue A
jj: what would be the situations where an orientation is essential?
<Joe_Humbert> https://
<Jamie> I was wrong, this is AA; @JJ shold we discuss later
quintinb: how it was defined for web? why like this?
quintinb: this should be an A for mobile
<Joe_Humbert> it was added in 2.1
<Detlev> I think the main ides was to support web on mobile devices better
AlainVagner: very common issue, could have some techniques to help developers
<Joe_Humbert> I have to drop I'll bring it up next timne
jj: issues will be created upfront
jj: will think about a new organisation