Meeting minutes
<quintinb> I'll be there in exactly the amount of time it takes me to get home from the train station
<JJ> @quintinb hope you live close to the train station :P
Draft Group Note
JJ: gives update on draft note, was presented to AGWG
Suggestino to link placeholder to GitHub issues (rename link to do that)
JJ: expand / collapse feature showing normative text fo rWCAG WCAG2ICT, additional guidance
… Qualify "applies directly as written" to say it refers to WCAG2ICT
Jamie: Working on abstract ans introduction
… abstract will be ready for review soon
… seems useful to follow the structure for WCAG2ICT note but we may vary a bit if needed
… speak up if you think something is missing
… John Gibbons wanted to help on terminology
… what is the pace of sharing this with the public, JJ?
… sharing internally in WCAG or externally?
JJ: Will become a group note
… first working draft planned for Feb 2025
… some time in Q1 2025 seems realistic
… hope to get more feedback
… we can still move forward on SCs
… the large variation ones will take more time
… aim: get it published at the end of 2025
JJ: it is fine to share the current URL of the draft - but explain that it is just an editors' draft
… just this group's opinion
JJ: Someone from LevelAccess will present tomorrow and refer to it
Joe: 2 question: in WCAG2ICT they add notes for different SCs - do we need that a well?
JJ: they have grey notes and green notes (thise are added)
… numbering seems odd
Question 2: Ho long does it usually take, any input from Kevin so we can dubmit it to get it out by the end of 2025
JJ: We are in CfC phase ending in December
… final phase takes longer
ACTION: Add new estimates to timeline for publishing
Joe: if we want the full thing published we might need to finalise all SCs by mid year if it takes 5 months
JJ: will double-check timeline with Keving and AGWG
Jamie: The link to the Editors draft note and the link a the top go to two differnent places. Should be the same location and a unified name to be less confusing
JJ: maybe change side bar
Jamie: just pointing it out, possible confusion
ACTION: Indicate Editor's draft in Respec (red sidebar + subtitle)
JJ: "This version" link currently does not work
3.2.2 On Input
JJ: labelled as small variation
… WCAG2ICT says applies as written
… we discussed what counts as User Interface Component
<quintinb> Are components different in mobile?
<quintinb> Seems legit to me
JJ: reading UIC definition in WCAG
… comparing with 3.2.1 On focus
Detlev: mentioning two types of focus, so this may need clarification
JJ: Reading the WCAG2ICT note for 3.2.1
Joe: Reviewing definitions UIC "users perceive as control" - but don't define control
<Karla> Agree, the example in the definition of "user interface component" is not pretty clear, maybe we can change it
Joe_Humbert: definition of contro needed or new example - example confusing
JJ: We had similar difficulties with definitions
Jamie: We would not be keeping it as written - the example should be more oriented at mobile app context
… element and control are nti the same, element is broader
… we vary from WCAG2ICT variations at least in definitions
ACTION: Clarify "user interface component" definition in mobile context
JJ: change of context definitionmay need update - UA not applicable - viewport definition different
… content is also fouced on web content
ACTION: Clarify "change of context" definition in mobile context (used in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2)
JJ: in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 - only places where it appears
… user interface component used more broadly
Jon: a change of setting implies that the component changes the context - web issues around on input these context would have a value attached to it... does it apply to this context?
JJ: We would look at a subset of UIC - so it onl yapplies to those that change settings - nut all components have settings - a button would not fall under this
ACTION: take a closer look at what "Changing the setting" means in 3.2.2
JJ: furthe rcomments?
1.1.1 Non-text Content
JJ: medium variation
… not-text broader than images, discussion on emojs
JJ: Reading WCAG 1.1.1 SC
… goes through situations
… WCAG2ICT applies as written
… wonder whether it is true that CAPTCHAS are web-only
JJ: Quintin mentioned haptic feedback
Quintin: No further comments
JJ: Interesting that haptics are excluded - are they sensory experience or notification...
Quintin: contextually useful nit can't be described in a doc like WCAG
… security plays a role in it if I don't get any feedback
JJ: We mentioned the types of non-text content and wondered if there are specific things on mobile less common in web
… haptics might be such a case
… not sure if it would be helpful to add if it is already in other SCS like sensory characteristics
… cold apply directly as written
<JJ> Vote: Apply 1.1.1 directly as written?
<Illai> +1
<quintinb> Not?
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<quintinb> +1
<Karla> +1
<Detlev> +0 not sure
<Jamie> +1
<quintinb> lol
<quintinb> q is the forgotten letter
<Jon_Gibbins> +0 also unsure currently
Android supports programmatic linking of associated text
<JJ> How to do https://
Ilai: referred to content grouping issue
Illai: in the apple developer documentation
… grouping Images and associated text
<quintinb> Yeah you would just group these and/or make the image decorative
<quintinb> https://
<JJ> Human Interface Guidlines for Image alt text: https://
Illai: text alternative issue phrased as grouping issue
JJ: not mandatory to give images the role image - but it would help
Jamie: Apple example on that page strange - example seems to imply it is one description with two images?
… focus grouping could be expanded on in our definition
<Jon_Gibbins> I think the example on the Apple docs is an abridged speech output that’s simply trying to point out content order
JJ: If not grouped you would have the wrong focus order
Illai: thats why it was treated as a focus order issue not so much alternative text
<Jon_Gibbins> A caption may be an appropriate alt text, so the accessible name for the image *may* be empty *if* the caption provides that appropriately. At times, the alt and caption may be different.
<Joe_Humbert> android:labelFor works for an image only it it is part of a button or if it has a contentDescription. Images with no contentDescription are treated as decorative
<Joe_Humbert> announces as "image for [linked text labe]"
Illai: unless the image is define das empty its role should be announced
ACTION: Research Android and iOS API's for linking visual image captions to the image
<quintinb> I have to go, apologies!
<Jamie> Zakim whispers to Jamie that the speaker queue has been closed, hahah
could have grouping requirement added at 1.3.1
Illai: real impact is in terms of meaningful sequence
JJ: often the solution for 1.3.2 issues would be grouping
<JJ> JJ: Consider adding note to Info and Relationships and/or Focus Order about grouping as a solution or requirements
<JJ> Illai: Meaningful Sequence seems most fitting
<JJ> JJ: Mentioning differences in Principle 1 and 2 for Focus Order and Meaningful Sequence
<JJ> Illai: Potentially add to Principle 3 - Understandable or Principle 4 - Robust
ACTION: Add grouping requirement to 1.3.2 as Note on Text change