12:20:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #matf
12:20:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-matf-irc
12:20:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:20:55 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Joe_Humbert
12:21:15 <Joe_Humbert> Zakim, this is MATF September 25 2024
12:21:15 <Zakim> got it, Joe_Humbert
12:21:49 <Joe_Humbert> Meeting: MATF September 25 2024
12:21:56 <Joe_Humbert> present+
12:22:22 <Joe_Humbert> regrets+ Alain Vagner
12:22:38 <Joe_Humbert> regrets+ Julian Kittelson-Aldred
12:24:03 <Joe_Humbert> zakim, agenda?
12:24:03 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
12:24:25 <Joe_Humbert> agenda+ 2.4.11 - Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
12:24:59 <Joe_Humbert> agenda+ 2.4.11 - 2.5.7 Dragging Movements
12:25:24 <Joe_Humbert> agenda+ 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
13:00:11 <quintinb> quintinb has joined #MATF
13:01:05 <quintinb> present+
13:01:23 <Illai> Illai has joined #matf
13:01:37 <Illai> present+
13:02:41 <Joe_Humbert> scribe: quintinb
13:03:35 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #matf
13:03:42 <Jamie> present+
13:04:01 <Joe_Humbert> move to next agendum
13:04:01 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- 2.4.11 - Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) -- taken up [from Joe_Humbert]
13:04:06 <Karla> Karla has joined #matf
13:04:52 <Karla> present+
13:05:08 <Joe_Humbert> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/52
13:05:56 <Jamie> q+
13:06:07 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:06:10 <Illai> q+
13:08:01 <Devanshu> Devanshu has joined #matf
13:08:10 <quintinb> Jamie The content itself seems straightforward. Things to think about: How is this different from focus visible? What is obscured but still allowed? There could be questions raised about how this plays out in real practice. What does it mean as a concept?
13:08:11 <Devanshu> present+
13:08:11 <Joe_Humbert> ack Illai
13:09:43 <quintinb> Illai On mobile, not so much web, in many cases you have elements receiving focus that should not be part of the page / screen - while using keyboard it makes sense
13:10:41 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert Are there any stats on keyboard usage? (He did say he supports the idea :) ) How prevelant is it?
13:10:59 <Devanshu> q+
13:11:43 <Jamie> q+
13:12:34 <Illai> q+
13:13:22 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert do mobile OS use the same HID interface - is it the same as desktop
13:13:29 <Joe_Humbert> ack devanshu
13:15:09 <quintinb> Devanshu In my opinion and experience - the problem is that there is no stats and that is the main problem. People do ask about keyboard accessibility. There are a lot of companies making these devices, but no standards seem to exist
13:15:50 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:16:04 <Jamie> q-
13:16:07 <Joe_Humbert> ack illai
13:16:38 <quintinb> Illai I didn't mean refer to keyboard - but we should try to rephrase that we should not focus on keyboard for this criterion
13:16:44 <quintinb> +1 Illai
13:17:14 <Karla> +1
13:17:18 <Jamie> q+
13:18:37 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:19:28 <quintinb> Jamie What do folks think about the addition of a layer that includes voice control and voice access, but focus on the audience that needs this type of focus? Is this about things that have access focus?
13:21:26 <quintinb> Jamie voice users may have issues with this because the component under "focus" is actually obscured by something else
13:22:58 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert should we replace the word "keyboard" in everwhere or just in this criteria
13:23:11 <quintinb> Illai we should look at the context of each one
13:23:30 <quintinb> I think we could call it "Input focus"
13:23:44 <Jamie> q+
13:25:03 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:27:04 <quintinb> Jamie 2.4.11 could say "When a keyboard operable component receives focus" - this about the component that has focus. The question about which type of focus is unclear. People may consider this verbose or get overly literal with the language.
13:28:07 <Joe_Humbert> move to next agendum
13:28:07 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 2.4.11 - 2.5.7 Dragging Movements -- taken up [from Joe_Humbert]
13:29:47 <Joe_Humbert> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/53
13:30:16 <quintinb> q+\
13:30:43 <Joe_Humbert> ack quintinb
13:30:50 <Jamie> q+
13:31:46 <quintinb> quintinb are we allowing for non-pointer movements (keyboard shortcuts / actions)?
13:32:30 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert this does encompass that (single pointer)
13:33:35 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert I don't think this should be the developers issue, this should already be put in place by the OS
13:34:35 <quintinb> I think any custom gestures defined by the developer is a business risk not having alternatives (because gestures aren't discoverable)
13:35:38 <quintinb> q+
13:35:49 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:35:49 <quintinb> ack \
13:36:30 <quintinb> Jamie reminder to the group that there is an open question on dragging movements - it is linked. So there is a reference
13:36:56 <Joe_Humbert> dragging movements definition discussion https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/65
13:36:58 <quintinb> Jamie I feel like that we could just keep it the same, but remove web
13:37:55 <quintinb> +1 Jamie
13:38:28 <Joe_Humbert> ack quintinb
13:38:47 <Illai> +1 amie
13:39:00 <Karla> +1
13:39:02 <Illai> +1 Jamie
13:39:20 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert we may have to redefine "user agent"
13:40:41 <Jamie> +1
13:40:46 <Jamie> to myself...?
13:40:53 <quintinb> Jamie :D
13:41:15 <Joe_Humbert> redefine "user agent" https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/63
13:41:17 <Joe_Humbert> +1
13:41:51 <quintinb> ACTION: Propose to accept 2.5.7 as written in WCAG2ICT
13:44:26 <Joe_Humbert> move to next agendum
13:44:26 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) -- taken up [from Joe_Humbert]
13:44:53 <Joe_Humbert> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/10
13:45:39 <quintinb> I think this is actually large considering there's no "unit standard" - Illai's MCAG does a great job at that
13:48:29 <Jamie> +1 Illai
13:48:45 <quintinb> Illai Both Android and iOS recommended sizes conflict with web - adopting 24x24 isn't sufficient
13:50:29 <quintinb> Google also has different sizes based on where elements exist on the screen: https://github.com/google/Accessibility-Test-Framework-for-Android/blob/c65cab02b2a845c29c3da100d6adefd345a144e3/src/main/java/com/google/android/apps/common/testing/accessibility/framework/checks/TouchTargetSizeCheck.java#L161
13:51:52 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert we could add a strongly worded note that 24x24 is too small practically for human fingers
13:51:57 <Jamie> q+
13:52:25 <quintinb> How does this apply to links in mobile? (Just a point of interest ask)
13:53:55 <Joe_Humbert> ack Jamie
13:56:55 <quintinb> Jamie 1. in testing context, folks don't have access to the exact numbers (@Joe has a solution - Google Ally scanner (Quintin adds the Android Debug Bridge 'uiautomator dump')) 2. In practice this is most an exception because of spacing
13:57:31 <quintinb> https://m2.material.io/design/layout/pixel-density.html#pixel-density-on-the-web "When designing for the web, replace dp with px (for pixel)."
13:58:37 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert we could refer to the bounding box for the hit target size
13:58:44 <quintinb> +1 Joe_Humbert
13:58:56 <Illai> +1 Joe_Humbert
13:59:10 <Jamie> i have to drop, thank you
14:01:23 <quintinb> ACTION: Add a note to 2.5.8 about a larger sizing requirement looking at the AAA requirement
14:02:09 <Joe_Humbert> Zakim, list participants
14:02:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Joe_Humbert, quintinb, Illai, Jamie, Karla, Devanshu
14:04:09 <Joe_Humbert> agenda 2 = 2.5.7 Dragging Movements
14:04:31 <Joe_Humbert> rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-matf-minutes.html Joe_Humbert
14:06:34 <Joe_Humbert> rrsagent, bye
14:06:34 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-matf-actions.rdf :
14:06:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Propose to accept 2.5.7 as written in WCAG2ICT [1]
14:06:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-matf-irc#T13-41-51
14:06:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Add a note to 2.5.8 about a larger sizing requirement looking at the AAA requirement [2]
14:06:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-matf-irc#T14-01-23