IRC log of matf on 2024-10-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:47:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #matf
12:47:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/02-matf-irc
12:47:40 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:47:41 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ
12:47:46 [JJ]
Zakim, this is MATF October 2, 2024
12:47:46 [Zakim]
got it, JJ
12:47:54 [JJ]
Meeting: MATF October 2, 2024
12:48:26 [JJ]
agenda+ TPAC update
12:48:31 [JJ]
agenda+ 2.4.11 - Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
12:48:36 [JJ]
agenda+ 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
12:48:41 [JJ]
agenda+ 3.2.1 On Focus
12:49:14 [JJ]
present+
12:50:22 [Joe_Humbert]
present+
12:56:04 [jeroen]
jeroen has joined #matf
13:00:10 [AlainVagner]
AlainVagner has joined #matf
13:00:15 [AlainVagner]
present+
13:00:55 [jeroen]
present+
13:03:22 [Carolina]
Carolina has joined #MATF
13:03:27 [Carolina]
present+
13:03:43 [Karla]
Karla has joined #matf
13:04:04 [Karla]
present+
13:04:28 [julianmka]
julianmka has joined #MATF
13:04:32 [julianmka]
present+
13:04:46 [Jamie]
Jamie has joined #matf
13:05:28 [Jamie]
present+
13:05:40 [Mick]
Mick has joined #MATF
13:05:59 [Mick]
present+
13:06:52 [JJ]
Joe: mostly sticked to the facilitator script when facilitating the last 4 meetings. Made progress, mostly with group agreement on SC's that apply directly from WCAG2ICT.
13:07:46 [JJ]
Joe: WCAG2ICT has a lot of extra stuff added, not all is relevant to mobile, want to keep it as straightfoward as possible
13:09:50 [julianmka]
Julian: `Action` command in IRC was very useful to track action items following decisions
13:10:26 [julianmka]
Joe_Humbert: Agendum items with an incorrect name cannot be updated
13:10:37 [julianmka]
s/Julian/julianmka
13:11:03 [JJ]
move to next agendum
13:11:03 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- TPAC update -- taken up [from JJ]
13:12:10 [JJ]
TPAC presentation: https://janjaap.com/tpac2024/
13:12:49 [JJ]
Add TPAC minutes
13:13:19 [Devanshu]
Devanshu has joined #matf
13:13:25 [Devanshu]
present+
13:14:24 [Joe_Humbert]
q+
13:16:03 [julianmka]
JJ: Reviewed deck from TPAC about Views and what that can mean in different W3C docs and in Native apps.
13:17:57 [julianmka]
JJ: We came fairly close to defining views, but accounting for exceptions can create challenges. Also, there was agreement that WCAG2ICT's "set of software" definition doesn't really make sense.
13:18:49 [julianmka]
JJ: Outcome: New sub-group of the AGWG to define "views" - for both MATF work but also potentially WCAG3 or WCAG-EM.
13:19:08 [JJ]
q?
13:19:09 [Jamie]
q+
13:19:17 [JJ]
ack Joe_Humbert
13:19:36 [julianmka]
Joe_Humbert: Do you have sense of how much the WCAG3 definition might change?
13:20:01 [julianmka]
JJ: Could change a lot. There are other related terms/definitions in WCAG3 that could be affected, too.
13:20:03 [JJ]
ack Jamie
13:20:24 [julianmka]
Jamie: What should this group do for a first draft of documentation?
13:21:11 [julianmka]
JJ: We can still use our own definition for now, probably "screen." But if there's a unified definition of "view," it could make sense of adopt that in the future.
13:22:08 [julianmka]
JJ: WCAG2ICT's original charter prevented them from certain changes, but in the re-charter process for taking up AAA SCs, they might be able to update "sets of software" to "sets of views."
13:22:35 [Mick]
If WCAG3 are using 'view' as their terminology should we use 'view' as well instead of 'screen'?
13:23:44 [Mick]
q+
13:23:54 [julianmka]
JJ: Seems likely WCAG3 will use "view" so it might make sense for us to use that. But if our goal is to give straightforward guidance, "screen" might be easier for others to use.
13:23:55 [JJ]
ack Mick
13:24:10 [JJ]
q?
13:24:39 [julianmka]
Mick: If WCAG3 is going in a certain direction, I think it makes sense to align early rather than have to change.
13:25:04 [julianmka]
JJ: They'll probably use "view" because it's broader. We can make this decision later.
13:26:45 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #matf
13:26:51 [Detlev]
present+
13:28:59 [Detlev]
q+
13:29:08 [julianmka]
JJ: There's conversation in the EN working group about Page Titled. In an upcoming version, Page Titled no longer be marked as void, but it will apply at the software, not screen, level. They'll include the WCAG2ICT note about screen titles as a best practice.
13:30:15 [julianmka]
JJ: EN group has also updated Consistent Identification to remove "set of software programs" to "software program."
13:31:06 [julianmka]
JJ: EN group also looking at Consistent Navigation and Consistent Help which are a bit more complex.
13:31:26 [Jamie]
q+
13:31:43 [JJ]
ack Detlev
13:31:47 [JJ]
Page Title in EN 301 549: https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/261
13:32:41 [julianmka]
Detlev: About Title requirement, if that applies to software; In an app context, it doesn't seem to make sense to announce the software/app name on every screen load.
13:33:36 [julianmka]
JJ: When the app or software is launched, the Title would be announced.
13:33:50 [julianmka]
JJ: They want to add a note or change wording to clarify the intent.
13:33:52 [JJ]
ack Jamie
13:33:53 [AlainVagner]
JJ could it be this issue about Page title? https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/275
13:35:40 [julianmka]
Jamie: Could you show the topics you're discussing onscreen?
13:35:49 [JJ]
Reconsidering WCAG-based software requirements omitted from EN 301 549 v.3.2.1: https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/278
13:36:49 [JJ]
Consistent Identification will no longer be Void: https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/282
13:41:14 [julianmka]
JJ: I'm sharing all of these links and discussions from ETSI/EN 301 549 because they're also working through "sets of software programs"
13:41:29 [JJ]
q?
13:42:05 [JJ]
move to next agendum
13:42:05 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- 2.4.11 - Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) -- taken up [from JJ]
13:45:26 [Mick]
Is this criteria not very specific to keyboard focus?
13:45:27 [julianmka]
JJ: Recaps discussion from the Github issue and recent meeting, found at https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/52
13:46:07 [Mick]
q+
13:46:07 [Joe_Humbert]
q+
13:46:26 [Mick]
q-
13:46:48 [Jamie]
q+
13:46:50 [julianmka]
q+
13:46:55 [JJ]
ack Joe_Humbert
13:47:56 [julianmka]
Joe_Humbert: Reason I said this might need more discussion is because I wondered if we needed to replace the word "keyboard" because there are other ATs where this SC is important. Do we want to replace "keyboard" or keep it focused on keyboard only?
13:48:57 [JJ]
ack Jamie
13:48:57 [julianmka]
JJ: It wouldn't be too hard to conform to this SC if it applied to other ATs
13:49:12 [Mick]
I agree we should look at other AT with keyboard. Probably should look at it in mind with SC 2.1.1, SC 2.1.2 and SC 2.4.3
13:50:21 [Joe_Humbert]
q+
13:50:46 [julianmka]
Jamie: If we do decide that it's about keyboard focus only, I think it would be helpful to add a note explaining that.
13:51:02 [JJ]
q?
13:51:05 [JJ]
ack julianmka
13:52:55 [julianmka]
julianmka: I'm wary of only considering hardware keyboards for this SC. The intent as written in Understanding acknowledges switch and speech recognition.
13:53:06 [Detlev]
q+
13:53:18 [JJ]
ack Joe_Humbert
13:53:33 [JJ]
ack Detlev
13:54:41 [Joe_Humbert]
q+
13:55:55 [julianmka]
Detlev: I think the reason for focusing on keyboard is because this SC was intended to address fixed-position content on webpages like cookie banners. While that can occur in apps and web view content, it might not be the exact same. If elements are not visible on the screen, do mobile switch and speech input allow focus on them?
13:56:58 [julianmka]
Detlev: When you bring up a menu or dialog, it's a user-initiated change, but that would be covered under focus order.
13:57:31 [julianmka]
JJ: So how would it work in an app where a pop-up comes up on launch with update information? Would be interesting to look at some cases where apps might fail this SC.
13:57:31 [JJ]
ack Joe_Humbert
13:57:33 [julianmka]
q+
13:57:57 [julianmka]
Joe_Humbert: Scrolling is possible with switch and voice access on iOS and Android.
13:58:08 [julianmka]
JJ: Also possible to scroll with hardware keyboard.
13:58:23 [JJ]
ack julianmka
13:58:47 [JJ]
close the queue
14:00:18 [julianmka]
julianmka: Would a native element in focus is partially cut off (like with a very tight focus indicator), would that be a fail?
14:00:42 [julianmka]
JJ: Probably not since the control would still be at least partially focusable. That would be under a different SC.
14:07:57 [JJ]
scribe: julianmka
14:08:17 [JJ]
Zakim, list participants
14:08:17 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been JJ, Joe_Humbert, AlainVagner, jeroen, Carolina, Karla, julianmka, Jamie, Mick, Devanshu, Detlev
14:08:26 [JJ]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:08:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/02-matf-minutes.html JJ
14:15:44 [JJ]
rrsagent, bye
14:15:44 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items