Meeting minutes
TODAY IS INTERNATIONAL CAPS LOCK DAY
Setup and Review Agenda
Matt_King: ANY REQUESTS TO CHANGE THE AGENDA?
<Adam_Page> hahaha
<Adam_Page> oh excuse me, HAHAHA
lola: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE OLDER E-MAILS TO THE ISSUE TRACKER
Matt_King: THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON OCTOBER 29
Publication planning
Matt_King: WE HAVE THREE CHANGES WHICH HAVE LANDED AND ARE DEFINITELY SHIPPING NEXT WEEK
Matt_King: FIRST, A CHANGE TO LINKS WHICH TOUCHED OVER 50 PAGES. THEN A CHANGE TO THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, AND THEN A CHANGE TO THE TOOLTIP BEHAVIOR
Matt_King: THAT MIGHT BE EVERYTHING FOR THE NEXT PUBLICATION, THOUGH WE MIGHT ALSO GET A CHANGE TO SKIPTO
jugglinmike: HOWARD WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK, SO WE WILL BE ABLE TO SHIP THIS AS PLANNED
siri: ARE WE CHANGING TOOLTIPS?
Matt_King: JUST AN EDITORIAL CHANGE TO THE NOTE
New Skipto Scroll Preview Options
Matt_King: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT JON'S WORK CONCERNS THE VISUAL INDICATION OF WHERE FOCUS WILL MOVE UPON SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR OPTION
Matt_King: IT WOULD BE GREAT IF FOLKS WHO CAN REVIEW THE VISUALS CAN TAKE A LOOK
Matt_King: DO WE MAKE NO CHANGE, CHOOSE THE SMOOTH-SCROLLING OPTION, OR CHOOSE THE INSTANT-SCROLLING OPTION?
<Zakim> Adam_Page, you wanted to SUGGEST A FOURTH OPTION
Adam_Page: I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER USING BOTH KINDS OF SCROLLING BUT WE GATE THE SMOOTH SCROLLING ACCORDING TO THE "uses smooth scrolling" MEDIA QUERY
<lola> +1 to Adam's suggestion
Adam_Page: WE COULD GIVE APG USERS APG A NICE EXPERIENCE ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN PREFERENCE AND ALSO DEMONSTRATE A BEST-PRACTICE
Matt_King: BOTH OF THESE ARE GATED BASED ON THAT SETTING. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE THINKING THAT ONLY THE "SMOOTH SCROLLING" OPTION SHOULD BE, THOUGH
Matt_King: MAKE "SMOOTH SCROLLING" THE DEFAULT, BUT IF YOU HAVE "reduced animation" ENABLED, REVERT TO "INSTANT SCROLLING"
<siri> Can you share the link?
lola: THE SMOOTH SCROLLING OPTION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW HERE https://
lola: THE INSTANT SCROLLING OPTION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW HERE https://
Adam_Page: I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSION. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A "PREVIEW" EFFECT
Matt_King: AS FAR AS I KNOW, WHEN YOU ACTIVATE THE ITEM, THE SCROLLING IS ALWAYS INSTANTANEOUS
lola: I CAN DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SHOULD BE GATED BY REDUCED MOTION. THE "SMOOTH SCROLLING" OPTION WOULD DISORIENT ME IF I WERE TO USE IT REGULARLY
lola: IF I'M HONEST, I DO PREFER THE "INSTANT SCROLLING" OPTION WITHOUT THE "SMOOTH SCROLLING" AT ALL
CurtBellew: I ALWAYS PREFER A SMOOTH SCROLL BECAUSE FOR ME, I TEND TO LOSE CONTEXT ABOUT WHERE I AM WHEN THE SCROLL POSITION "JUMPS"
siri: I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS Adam_Page'S ORIGINAL SUGGESTION
Adam_Page: I FEEL LIKE THERE IS NUANCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I THINK MANY USERS WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT WE SHOW A PREVIEW; THEY WOULD EXPECT THE PAGE ONLY TO RESPOND WHEN THEY ACTUALLY ACTIVATE THE BOTTOM
Adam_Page: USERS LIKE lola MIGHT NOT HAVE THE "reduced motion" SETTING ENABLED BECAUSE THEY GENERALLY AREN'T SENSITIVE, BUT THAT THEY WOULD STILL FIND THIS PARTICULARLY BEHAVIOR DISORIENTING
lola: I REMEMBER THAT WE DON'T WANT TO INTRODUCE SETTINGS ON APG FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, BUT PERHAPS WE HAVE A TOGGLE ON THE PAGE; THAT COULD BE OVERKILL, THOUGH.
Matt_King: WITHOUT ANY PERSISTENCE, I DON'T THINK A TOGGLE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL
Adam_Page: MAKING IT SLOWER MIGHT MAKE THIS MORE AGREEABLE TO MORE FOLKS. A CHANGE LIKE THAT SHOULD BE EASY TO IMPLEMENT TECHNICALLY
Adam_Page: I THINK THIS IS NOVEL, AND I THINK THERE'S A VALUE IN PRESENTED A UI TO SIGHTED USERS WHICH GIVE THEM SOME ADVANTAGE OF THE HEADING HIERARCHY. ORIENTING THEM SPATIALLY ON THE PAGE ALSO SEEMS VALUABLE
CurtBellew: I ALSO APPRECIATE THE SMOOTH SCROLLING BECAUSE, AS I MENTIONED, IT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING
jugglinmike: THIS ALMOST FEELS MORE LIKE A BROWSER FEATURE THAN A WEB APP FEATURE. USERS WHO APPRECIATE THIS WOULD PROBABLY PREFER IT IMPLEMENTED CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL DOCUMENT-FRAGMENT LINKS THAT THEY ENCOUNTER ON THE WEB AT LARGE
CurtBellew: THERE ARE WEB EXTENSIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR
Matt_King: IMPLEMENTING IT HERE COULD BE A FIRST STEP IN A JOURNEY TOWARD GETTING IT IMPLEMENTED MORE WIDELY
lola: WOULD SLOWING DOWN THE ANIMATION IMPACT THE USEFULNESS TO YOU, CurtBellew?
CurtBellew: NOT AT ALL
<Zakim> Adam_Page, you wanted to NOTE AN UNRELATED QUIRK IN THE DESIGN
Adam_Page: IN THE DESIGN OF THE MENU ITSELF--THE VISIBLE UI FOR IT--EACH HEADING IN THE HEADING SECTION IS PRECEDED BY THE HEADING LEVEL WITHIN A SET OF PARENTHESIS
Adam_Page: THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF COGNITIVE FRICTION TO UNDERSTAND THAT
Adam_Page: I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO ADDRESS NOW, BUT I WANTED TO NOTE IT AT LEAST
Matt_King: IF IT INCLUDED THE WORD "LEVEL", WOULD THAT HELP?
Adam_Page: I THINK SO, THOUGH THAT MIGHT BE VERBOSE
Adam_Page: TO ME, THE VISUAL INDENTATION COMMUNICATES THE HIERARCHY IN A MORE SUBTLE WAY
Matt_King: SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO ONLY PROVIDED THE LEVEL INFORMATION TO SCREEN READERS BECAUSE THE VISUAL INDENTATION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THOSE WHO CAN OBSERVE IT
Adam_Page: THAT'S RIGHT
github: w3c/
1.4.3 Contrast Failure in Feed Example
github: w3c/
Matt_King: IN THE FEED EXAMPLE, IN THE IFRAME, WE HAVEN'T SPECIFIED A TEXT COLOR FOR TWO OF THE ELEMENTS
siri: IF THE COLOR IS NOT SPECIFIED THAN HOW IS THE COLOR PROVIDED?
Matt_King: MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT IT IS INHERITED
Matt_King: TECHNICALLY, AS IT STANDS, THAT CONTRAST IS PROBABLY SUFFICIENT. BUT IF YOU'RE TESTING THIS IN THE WAY F24 SUGGESTS, THOUGH...
Matt_King: F24 MAY BE GOING BEYOND THE REQUIREMENT HERE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT 1.4.3 DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS ASPECT OF "ROBUSTNESS" FOR COLORS
siri: MAYBE SOMETIMES YOU WILL INHERIT DIFFERENT COLORS FROM THE PARENT
lola: THE DEFAULT TEXT COLOR WOULD BE SET IN THE BROWSER'S INTERNAL CSS, AND IT IS USUALLY (AT LEAST IN "LIGHT" MODE) BLACK (OR A COLOR SIMILAR TO BLACK)
lola: ACCORDING TO THIS F24, IT'S GOING TO FAIL BECAUSE THE COLOR HASN'T BEEN SET. IS THERE ANY HARM IN EXPLICITLY SETTING THE COLOR JUST SO THAT DOESN'T FAIL, EVEN IF WE SET IT TO THE SAME COLOR IT WOULD TAKE BY DEFAULT?
Matt_King: NO, THERE WOULD BE NO HARM IN THAT
Adam_Page: I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. IT FEELS... OLD
Matt_King: YEAH, ANYTHING RELATED TO PERSONAL STYLESHEETS FEELS LIKE A 90'S PROBLEM TO ME
Matt_King: IT FEELS MORE LIKE A ROBUSTNESS ISSUE TO ME RATHER THAN A STRAIGHT-UP FAILURE
Adam_Page: ANY USER WHO HAS THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE A PROBLEM HERE WOULD BE EQUIPPED TO RESOLVE IT THEMSELVES (BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING SELECTED A NON-DEFAULT COLOR VALUE IN THE FIRST PLACE)
<siri> agreed
CurtBellew: INTERNALLY, WE HAVE A TESTING TOOL, AND WE DEFINITELY DON'T TEST FOR THIS
Matt_King: THIS HAS GOTTEN WAY MORE INTERESTING THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO GET!
Matt_King: IF THIS PROBLEM APPEARS IN THIS ONE SPOT IN APG, THEN I HAVE A HARD TIME IMAGINING THAT IT DOESN'T OCCUR IN MANY OTHER PLACES, TOO
Matt_King: THAT SAID, I DON'T MIND MAKING A CHANGE HERE.
Adam_Page: I AM ABLE TO REVIEW THE PATCH
Adam_Page: I THINK THIS EXPOSES AN INTERESTING QUIRK OF WCAG, AND I'M INTERESTED IN TAKING THAT UP WITH THEM
Adam_Page: BUT I THINK THIS PAGE DOES A GOOD JOB BRINGING US TO ALIGNMENT WITH PRESENT-DAY WCAG
siri: SHOULD WE ADD A NOTE ABOUT THIS?
Matt_King: I DON'T WANT TO BRING TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO IT
siri: I CAN ALSO REVIEW
Matt_King: THANKS TO YOU BOTH!
Processing old issues reported to the mailing list
Matt_King: I THINK WE SHOULDN'T ASSUME THERE WAS EVER A PRIVATE RESPONSE
Matt_King: I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT HAVE EVER APPLIED TO SOMEBODY OFF THE LIST TO ANSWER A QUESTION
Matt_King: I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE REPRESENTING THE TASK FORCE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT
Matt_King: I THINK THAT, IN GENERAL, IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT ANY REPORT WHICH WENT UNACKNOWLEDGED ON THE LIST IS UNRESOLVED
lola: HOW FAR BACK SHOULD I GO?
Matt_King: JANUARY 1, 2024 SHOULD BE GOOD