Meeting minutes
2.5.4 - Motion Actuation
Please ensure I properly represent you - if you want to correct me I welcome the feedback!
Joe_Humbert We may need to add some sections - he's going through it and will share it out with us on slack and email (action items in progress)
<Joe_Humbert> w3c/
julianmka: This one is refreshingly straightforward as it seems to have been made with mobile in mind
<quintinb> +1
<Illai> +1
<Jamie> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<julianmka> !+
<julianmka> 1+
<AlainVagner> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<Mick> +1
Review 2nd round of voting on SCs that required little or no modification from WCAG2ICT
ACTION: Accept proposed language in 2.5.4 Github issue
<Mick> +1
<AlainVagner> +1
<Jamie> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Illai> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<RacheleD> +`
<quintinb> +1 to accept 2.5.3 as written from WCAG2ICT
<RacheleD> +1
<Detlev> +1
2.5.4 sorry
ACTION: accept 2.5.4 as written from WCAG2ICT
<Jamie> 2.5.3 quintinb
accept 2.5.4 as written from WCAG2ICT
<Jamie> both
[ACTION] accept 2.5.3 as written from WCAG2ICT
ACTION: accept 2.5.3 as written from WCAG2ICT
<Mick> My only concern with errors in dialogs is that they are generally removed once the user dismissing them. Ideally the error doesn't get removed until it's resolved. Hence I think inline provides more value.
Jamie: There was a question raised about the words "in text" - does the error need to be in the same location (as opposed to a dialog)?
Joe_Humbert indicated from the intent page seems to show that the mechanism of display is not covered
<quintinb> +1 Mick - although persistant error messages may not update if they are repeated
<Jamie> The SC is about the content itself
julianmka: We do need to consider that we are used to nuances. We should probably advocate for multiple mechanisms of showing errors (if we are going to do it)
<Jamie> +1 to julianmka
Detlev: The "in text" statement probably means that the error should be more than just an image - that it could be detectable by different assistive technologies as text.
<Illai> +1 to julianmka , but it is probably should be a part of a document like the "Understanding" part not a part of the SC
<Mick> I interoperate the same as Joe
<julianmka> Agreed, Illai
<Jamie> +1 Illai, no variation needed in this moment
Jamie This is in the understanding section and is about the content of the error. It can look like that some of the errors are identified by it's location. The content may not need to have specific placement. Focus is on the understanding section. Location is not in the criteria
Jamie placement could be an additional SC - it's a different angle to consider. I'm suggesting to not make any changes to the SC as is
<Illai> +1
<RacheleD> +1
<julianmka> +1
<AlainVagner> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Jamie> +1
<quintinb> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
ACTION: accept 3.3.1 as written from WCAG2ICT
Detlev If you have a multi-field form with an error message - to identify the error you would need to describe which field. In this case it would not just be location. Perhaps by label or something. This would come from the general understanding
Jamie Question of functionality in native: "If an input error is automatically detected" - could there be a mechanism to "bypass" the intention of the criteria because it was not automatically detected
Joe_Humbert An error message would not display if it was not automatically detected
Detlev if there is no automation, then this probably isn't a reason for the SC
<quintinb> +1 to accept 3.3.3 as is
<AlainVagner> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Illai> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<Mick> +2
<Mick> +1
ACTION: accept 3.3.3 as written from WCAG2ICT
<Mick> Very enthusiastic I am, lol
<Jamie> +1
julianmka no question!
<quintinb> +1 to accept 3.3.4 as is (save the "web" word) from WCAG2ICT
<Jamie> +1
<AlainVagner> +1
<Mick> +1
<Illai> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<RacheleD> +1
<Detlev> +1
Who does web anyway?
<julianmka> +1
<Jamie> lol
ACTION: accept 3.3.4 as written (save the word "Web") from WCAG2ICT
Joe_Humbert new labels will be added when permissions are given
<Jamie> FYI I'm having zoom issues so now entirely IRC
Any comments on 3.3.7?
Happy to accept 3.3.7 as is from WCAG2ICT?
<Jamie> not to do WCAG 2.3 yet?
<Jamie> 2.2 i mean
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<julianmka> +1
<quintinb> +1
<AlainVagner> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Illai> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<Mick> +1
<Jamie> +1
ACTION: accept 3.3.7 as written from WCAG2ICT
<Jamie> summary quintinb?
<Jamie> topic Joe_Humbert?
quintinb with custom versions of Android (AOSP) this may present problems? Does this apply to the operating system?
Joe_Humbert we can't apply this to operating systems
quintinb +1
<Jamie> which SC are we discussing?
3.3.8
<Aashutosh> +1 quintinb
Sorry I meant to +1 Joe_Humbert, not myself, lol
Nothing more from me
Detlev I think we should focus on the author and not the OS, we should focus on the app developer and not the OS
<Illai> +1 Detlev
<quintinb> +1 Detlev
<Joe_Humbert> +1 Detlev
<quintinb> +1 to accept 3.3.8 as written from WCAG2ICT, with leaving out the notes
<Jamie> change from "web" in the WCAG2ICT language proposal
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Jamie> +1
<Illai> +1
<julianmka> +1
<quintinb> +1
<Mick> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
ACTION: accept 3.3.8 as a first draft from WCAG2ICT, with leaving out the notes and removing "web" references
<Aashutosh> End early! its already late in Singapore!
<Detlev> let's have it next meeting
Or we could spend 10 minutes discussing whether to end early
<Jamie> 2.4.11
:D
<julianmka> We can always start discussing in the comments :D
ACTION: add 2.4.11 to agenda for next time