14:00:43 RRSAgent has joined #matf 14:00:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc 14:00:48 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:00:49 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ 14:00:49 Zakim, this is MATF January 15, 2025 14:00:49 got it, JJ 14:00:51 Meeting: MATF January 15, 2025 14:00:56 chair+ 14:01:31 present+ 14:01:51 present+ 14:02:02 Megan_Pletzer has joined #matf 14:02:36 Carol has joined #MATF 14:02:39 agenda+ First Public Working Draft (FPWD) 14:02:40 present+ 14:02:45 agenda+ 2.4.3 Focus Order 14:02:51 agenda+ 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) 14:02:57 agenda+ 2.5.8 Touch Target Size (Minimum) 14:03:46 Aash has joined #matf 14:04:30 julianmka has joined #MATF 14:04:35 present+ 14:04:49 Karla has joined #matf 14:04:51 present+ 14:05:05 present+ 14:05:05 present+ 14:05:06 present+ AlainVagner 14:05:22 move to next agendum 14:05:22 agendum 1 -- First Public Working Draft (FPWD) -- taken up [from JJ] 14:05:26 scribe+ Aash 14:05:44 Detlev has joined #matf 14:05:52 present+ 14:07:27 JJ shared the current status of the WCAG2Mobile draft. 14:07:27 JJ asked the larger group to leave comments on the github 14:07:27 So we need to finish the issues in "drafting" section 14:08:07 Key terms section is pending. 14:08:23 JJ plans to publish this in early March 14:08:49 CFC in February 14:09:10 move to next agendum 14:09:10 agendum 2 -- 2.4.3 Focus Order -- taken up [from JJ] 14:12:45 q+ 14:12:50 ack Aash 14:13:32 Jamie has joined #matf 14:13:44 q+ 14:13:49 ack Detlev 14:13:54 present+ 14:14:03 Aash shared that the default flow should be derived from research. Can be a note 14:14:07 GleidsonRamos has joined #matf 14:14:53 Detlev we can't assume that we can reach all elements by tapping / swiping 14:15:52 @detlev if you can reach elements by any means, the issues is pass, but with a note 14:16:53 q+ 14:17:14 q+ 14:17:17 ack Jamie 14:17:18 JJ we need to understand about the nuances of iOS and Android 14:18:03 Jamie we need to maybe differentiate the interactions in keyboard vs non-keyboard 14:18:46 ack Detlev 14:19:02 JJ we had an idea to update keyboard interface definition to include all assistive tech 14:22:06 JJ mentioned that keyboard + AT need to be mapped properly as they might interfere with each other 14:23:07 q+ 14:23:43 ACTION: Update "navigated sequentially" definition, it mentions "keyboard interface" 14:24:28 ACTION: Define the ways of interaction, e.g. tab, shift+tab, arrow keys, etc. that are acceptable to navigate 14:24:36 q+ 14:24:40 ack Detlev 14:25:05 q+ 14:25:39 Detlev we can define one way where all elements can be reached with the same interaction, arrow or tab 14:26:43 ACTION: Think about what "sequential" means in a mobile context in relation with the keys used for navigating 14:27:24 Detlev the special keystrokes needed to go to navigation / header might not be known to all. 14:28:07 ack Jamie 14:28:54 Jamie Agree with Detlev . Special keystrokes may confuse people. 14:29:18 Jamie the tester needs to know how the keyboard interacts with the operating system 14:30:04 ACTION: Consider adding Note that failure depends on whether the expected keyboard operation matches the actual keyboard operation of the component / screen 14:30:06 +1 Jamie 14:30:34 Jamie we may add a note about keyboard functionality . That will help reduce confusion 14:30:53 ack julianmka 14:32:01 julianmka: Take semantics of the view into account to define the expected keyboard operation keys 14:32:04 Workday's research on keyboard nav in mobile: https://github.com/workday-accessibility/accessibility-eval/blob/main/keyboard.md 14:32:13 julianmka I was not suggesting that expectations should be overwritten, sure 14:32:46 Apologies for the misunderstanding Detlev 14:33:22 we can mention the accepted ways of using keyboard based on comments from julianmka and Jamie 14:33:53 q? 14:34:01 JJ the guidelines with medium / large variation, we may have to work more to clarify 14:34:14 move to next agendum 14:34:14 agendum 3 -- 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) -- taken up [from JJ] 14:38:01 q? 14:38:07 Detlev has joined #matf 14:38:39 q+ 14:38:47 presnt+ 14:38:52 present+ 14:38:55 ack Detlev 14:39:04 q+ 14:39:42 Detlev 2.4.11 is not included yet in testing since EN does not include them 14:40:25 Detlev there needs to be some differentiation between keyboard and OTHER interfaces 14:40:54 Jamie has joined #matf 14:40:57 prsent+ 14:41:03 present+ 14:41:08 q+ 14:41:39 ack Jamie 14:42:54 Jamie we clarified that the component in focus needs to be visible, not the focus 14:43:25 ACTION: Clarify "author-created" definition (maybe in AG WG?) 14:43:32 q+ 14:43:59 ack Joe_Humbert 14:44:11 Jamie to clarify this on github 14:44:53 addition to minutes: Of course you **can** include 2.4.11 in testing - it's just we don't currently, due to the current content of EN 301 549 V.3.2.1 14:45:24 Joe_Humbert: mentions scenario where the focus indicator is displayed visually at the top level, but the actual component that is attempted to be indicated is on a lower level (Z-index) 14:45:49 Jamie and Joe_Humbert both mention sticky component that could also obscure content (not very common in apps) 14:46:54 I've seen the same thing as Joe's first example on app screens with shoddily-implemented modals that didn't limit focus to the modal/sheet. 14:47:02 JJ: Floating action button could potentially obscure content, usually fixed in bottom right position 14:47:30 Q+ 14:47:55 q+ 14:48:10 ack Joe_Humbert 14:50:24 Joe_Humbert the ATs on mobiles have been there since the beginning. Should we be considering these, mapped to keyboard interface? 14:51:31 ack Jamie 14:51:34 JJ if it is written as keyboard, we consider only keyboard. For keyboard interface, we consider others 14:52:35 Jamie when scrolling, the sticky header/footer turns a bit translucent, where the sighted users can detect the element in focus 14:52:36 Jamie: how to deal with semi-transparent (semi) sticky components that might change opacity while scrolling? When is something "not entirely hidden"? 14:54:32 Jamie we need to document the percentages of visibility if content is moving behind translucent sticky elements 14:58:58 rrsagent, make minutes 14:58:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-minutes.html JJ 15:01:30 @Aash just a modification: I didn't intend to suggest that we need to document the percentage of opacity for visibility 15:01:49 JJ 15:08:27 rrsagent, make minutes 15:08:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-minutes.html JJ 15:14:02 github-bot has joined #matf 15:22:12 regrets+ QuintinB 15:22:25 regrets+ TimGravemaker 15:22:30 regrets+ Illai 15:22:34 regrets+ JonGibbins 15:22:41 regrets+ JeroenHulscher 15:22:47 rrsagent, make minutes 15:22:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-minutes.html JJ 15:24:15 rrsagent, bye 15:24:15 I see 5 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-actions.rdf : 15:24:15 ACTION: Update "navigated sequentially" definition, it mentions "keyboard interface" [1] 15:24:15 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc#T14-23-43 15:24:15 ACTION: Define the ways of interaction, e.g. tab, shift+tab, arrow keys, etc. that are acceptable to navigate [2] 15:24:15 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc#T14-24-28 15:24:15 ACTION: Think about what "sequential" means in a mobile context in relation with the keys used for navigating [3] 15:24:15 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc#T14-26-43 15:24:15 ACTION: Consider adding Note that failure depends on whether the expected keyboard operation matches the actual keyboard operation of the component / screen [4] 15:24:15 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc#T14-30-04 15:24:15 ACTION: Clarify "author-created" definition (maybe in AG WG?) [5] 15:24:15 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-matf-irc#T14-43-25 15:24:20 zakim, bye 15:24:20 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been AlainVagner, Joe_Humbert, Carol, Aash, Megan_Pletzer, Karla, julianmka, Detlev, Jamie 15:24:20 Zakim has left #matf