12:55:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #matf
12:55:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc
12:55:08 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:55:09 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ
12:55:11 <JJ> Zakim, this is MATF 10 September 2025
12:55:11 <Zakim> got it, JJ
12:55:21 <JJ> Meeting: MATF 10 September 2025
12:55:37 <JJ> chair+
12:55:44 <JJ> agenda+ Project planning update
12:55:50 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
12:55:54 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation
12:55:59 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.3 Label in Name
12:56:03 <JJ> agenda+ Change of Context definition
12:56:10 <JJ> agenda+ Set of Web pages definition
12:56:14 <JJ> agenda+ User interface component
12:59:01 <shoobe01> shoobe01 has joined #matf
13:00:22 <quintinb> quintinb has joined #MATF
13:00:28 <quintinb> present+
13:01:05 <shoobe01> present+
13:01:05 <pauljadam> pauljadam has joined #matf
13:01:08 <Joe_Humbert> Joe_Humbert has joined #matf
13:01:50 <Joe_Humbert> present+
13:02:08 <pauljadam> present+
13:02:19 <Tanya> Tanya has joined #matf
13:02:54 <Tanya> present+
13:03:17 <quintinb> scribe: @quintinb
13:03:25 <JJ> scribe: quintinb
13:03:35 <JJ> move to next agenda item
13:03:35 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Project planning update -- taken up [from JJ]
13:04:40 <quintinb> JJ to meet with Tanya and will email us about some infrastructure and async working
13:05:41 <JJ> shoobe01: Can subordinate groups be created to work on specific tasks, or categories of tasks, but work offline/asynch, as much as possible? Slack or email each other to make plans, pursue individual tasks individually or collaboratively?
13:06:31 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #matf
13:06:36 <Jamie> present+
13:06:41 <Tim> Tim has joined #matf
13:06:48 <Tim> present+
13:06:59 <rachaely> rachaely has joined #matf
13:07:00 <JJ> any more suggestions?
13:07:16 <JJ> move to next agenda item
13:07:16 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures -- taken up [from JJ]
13:07:21 <rachaely> present+
13:07:25 <JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/37
13:08:05 <JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/pull/266
13:08:31 <JJ> 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures: All functionality that uses multipoint or path-based gestures for operation can be operated with a single pointer without a path-based gesture, unless a multipoint or path-based gesture is essential.
13:08:31 <JJ> Note
13:08:31 <JJ> This requirement applies to mobile applications that interpret pointer actions (i.e., this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the platform software, operating system, or assistive technology). Each layer is responsible for its own pointer actions only, not for those in an underlying layer.
13:08:31 <JJ> Note
13:08:33 <JJ> Examples of multipoint gestures include pinch-to-zoom, two-finger scrolling, split-tap (where one finger rests on screen while another taps), and multi-finger swipes.
13:08:33 <JJ> Examples of path-based gestures include swipe gestures requiring specific directional input such as carousels and sliders, custom drawing gestures, and pull-to-refresh actions.
13:08:33 <JJ> Multipoint and path-based gestures handled by underlying layers (platform software, operating system, or assistive technology) are exempt under Note 1.
13:08:38 <quintinb> No mention of a keyboard shortcut?
13:09:47 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #matf
13:09:51 <Jamie> present+
13:10:28 <quintinb> I suppose it's covered by 2.1.1
13:10:37 <Jamie> q+
13:10:45 <quintinb> JJ is also looking at how notes are to be numbered
13:10:54 <quintinb> JavaScript isn't perfect?!?!
13:11:52 <JJ> ack Jamie
13:13:20 <shoobe01> +1 to this layering exception duplication feeling odd in Note #2
13:13:27 <quintinb> @Jamie The last sentence on the last note will make more sense on layers. If someone is reading this as a user. We see in the following note that the last note (scribe lost track) - maybe we should have a second note.
13:14:05 <quintinb> Should we define layer better than we do now?
13:14:50 <pauljadam> the exception for OS and AT does not seem relevant to developers, would only matter if you're the OS or AT developer 🤷‍♂️
13:15:29 <quintinb> agree pauljadam - it might sound like an "out"
13:17:15 <pauljadam> yeah I like the Example blocks
13:17:30 <Tanya> I like Example blocks more as well
13:17:35 <shoobe01> +1 to example blocks
13:18:04 <Tim> +1 to the example blokcs
13:18:27 <shoobe01> Q on them though. Should there be an example of meeting the requirement in example? "The gestural function is also available in a menu" or similar?
13:18:51 <JJ> ACTION: Turn the examples in note 2 into example blocks
13:19:10 <JJ> ACTION: Clear up the layer terminology (using examples?)
13:19:31 <Jamie> +1
13:20:26 <pauljadam> example does not say how to meet it
13:20:30 <quintinb> shoobe01: I was wondering if these are merely definitions or if we can use examples to demonstrate what is meant
13:20:33 <pauljadam> just says what it can be
13:23:32 <JJ> is it an improvement to include the normative text in all SC's, also if they apply 'as written'?
13:24:05 <Tanya> +1
13:24:05 <quintinb> Yeah I think keep normative text
13:24:05 <Tim> +1
13:24:07 <pauljadam> +1
13:24:07 <quintinb> +1
13:24:10 <rachaely> +1
13:24:11 <Joe_Humbert> +1
13:24:24 <shoobe01> +1
13:24:27 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #matf
13:24:34 <Jamie> present+
13:24:36 <Jamie> +1
13:24:40 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:24:49 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:25:35 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert So we repeat the text a 3rd time? It's under the collapsed for WCAG and the collapsed text for WCAG2ICT.
13:26:47 <JJ> move to next agenda item
13:26:47 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation -- taken up [from JJ]
13:27:24 <JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/38
13:27:32 <JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/pull/267
13:28:40 <JJ> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.2.
13:28:40 <JJ> 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation: For functionality that can be operated using a single pointer, at least one of the following is true:
13:28:40 <JJ> No Down-Event
13:28:40 <JJ>     The down-event of the pointer is not used to execute any part of the function;
13:28:42 <JJ> Abort or Undo
13:28:42 <JJ>     Completion of the function is on the up-event, and a mechanism is available to abort the function before completion or to undo the function after completion;
13:28:42 <JJ> Up Reversal
13:28:43 <JJ>     The up-event reverses any outcome of the preceding down-event;
13:28:43 <JJ> Essential
13:28:43 <JJ>     Completing the function on the down-event is essential.
13:28:44 <JJ> Note
13:28:44 <JJ> This requirement applies to mobile applications that interpret pointer actions (i.e., this does not apply to actions that are required to operate the platform software, operating system, or assistive technology). Each layer is responsible for its own pointer actions only, not for those in an underlying layer.
13:28:44 <JJ> Note
13:28:45 <JJ> Functions that emulate a keyboard or numeric keypad key press are considered essential.
13:28:45 <JJ> Note
13:28:45 <JJ> The determination of "essential" should focus on whether the function itself requires down-event activation, rather than solely on technological constraints. However, limitations of the underlying technology platform may also constitute valid exceptions where developers cannot provide alternative implementations.
13:28:46 <JJ> Example:
13:28:46 <JJ> Examples of essential functionality for mobile applications include:
13:28:46 <JJ>     Features required for meeting system requirements (such as waking a device from sleep, power management controls, and emergency functions)
13:28:47 <JJ>     Interactions that require pointer down to function, such as drawing or sketching tools
13:31:46 <quintinb> Yeah I think this is when the front end dev deviated from the platform to make their own thing
13:33:02 <pauljadam> the drawing example makes sense for app developers but the waking device example would be only for device or operating system developers
13:33:26 <pauljadam> This one seems to vague or open to allow a developer to avoid making something accessible:
13:33:26 <pauljadam> However, limitations of the underlying technology platform may also constitute valid exceptions where developers cannot provide alternative implementations.
13:33:43 <shoobe01> Q+
13:34:24 <quintinb> That could be useful pauljadam - if the developers are modelling the same functionality as seen on the OS... (but probably we could find a better example)
13:34:41 <JJ> ack shoobe01
13:34:48 <pauljadam> q+
13:34:56 <JJ> ack shoobe
13:35:12 <quintinb> shoobe01: I worry about this stepping on the layering discussion. If it's only OS layer stuff.
13:36:11 <quintinb> shoobe01: most forms have drag away cancellation, but slider doesn't. We mustn't give to an easy an out to not meet the requirement
13:37:04 <quintinb> shoobe01: do we mean abort vs undo?
13:37:33 <JJ> q?
13:37:34 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:38:24 <JJ> Abort or undo for sliders, checkbox, toggles: start at off, you press to change state (on), then press to change state (off), is that sufficient to pass 'abort' or 'undo'?
13:38:39 <shoobe01> +1 on escape route comments
13:38:45 <quintinb> pauljadam - similar to ios Toggles - but you can just undo - it's about fault tolerance. Developers should not always get a pass due to "tech limitations"
13:39:55 <shoobe01> Signature is basically drawing. Could include in the example as well
13:39:56 <quintinb> pauljadam is our focus "apps" - not OS or AT's
13:40:06 <quintinb> (OS = Operating System)
13:40:14 <quintinb> (AT = Assistive Technology)
13:40:55 <pauljadam> q+
13:41:11 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:41:39 <JJ> Remove "Features required for meeting system requirements" from examples?
13:41:46 <quintinb> pauljadam "drawing application" might be too generic - we don't want people to think that that's the only alternative
13:42:00 <pauljadam> +1
13:42:06 <shoobe01> +1
13:42:08 <rachaely> +1
13:42:11 <quintinb> Agree to remove the first bullet point from the note?
13:42:13 <quintinb> +1
13:42:21 <pauljadam> can we remove "However, limitations of the underlying technology platform may also constitute valid exceptions where developers cannot provide alternative implementations." too?
13:42:23 <Jamie> Jamie has joined #matf
13:42:32 <Jamie> present+
13:42:46 <Joe_Humbert> +1
13:42:52 <Jamie> +1
13:43:06 <Tim> +1
13:43:23 <JJ> Remove "However, limitations of the underlying technology platform may also constitute valid exceptions where developers cannot provide alternative implementations."?
13:43:36 <pauljadam> +1
13:43:48 <Jamie> 0
13:44:01 <quintinb> +1 - developers should be putting pressure on the underlying layers to be more accessible
13:44:23 <Tanya> 0
13:44:26 <rachaely> 0
13:44:31 <shoobe01> +1
13:44:38 <Joe_Humbert> -1
13:44:58 <Tim> +0
13:45:02 <pauljadam> if it's not removed can there be some specific examples at least?
13:45:07 <quintinb> I think it's important that when we start thinking of apps written in layers (flutter / react native) - these platforms are not accessible and not excused from needing to be accessible
13:45:45 <shoobe01> I'm with quintinb's several comments here.
13:46:16 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:46:25 <Jamie> quintinb pauljadam it's not the job of an app developer as part of WCAG to put pressure on the platform
13:46:30 <JJ> ACTION: Remove "Features required for meeting system requirements" from examples?
13:46:46 <JJ> ACTION: Add more examples of 'essential' exception
13:46:47 <quintinb> Jamie I would like to chat more on this :)
13:46:51 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:46:58 <rachaely> q+
13:47:56 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert I agree with Jamie - a good example is that Apple disregards well know issues with AT and takes a long time to fix the problem. If Apple doesn't care, the developers should not be docked for inaccessible platforms
13:48:42 <pauljadam> If there is a platform defect that a developer cannot fix it's a WCAG failure, just one they cannot fix and one that Apple would have to fix. Not sure where that lands in a lawsuit, don't think I've ever seen it discussed.
13:48:56 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert If OS's don't receive complaints I don't see how they're going to know there's a problem - use4rs can't phrase things in a technical way like developers can - but I think this is a little bit off topic
13:49:06 <JJ> ack rachaely
13:49:08 <quintinb> (sorry last comment was me, not Joe)
13:49:53 <quintinb> rachaely I agree with people not using x-platform as an out. Perhaps we should mention the operating system specifically to avoid confusion
13:50:25 <pauljadam> +1 to operating system
13:50:41 <Jamie> q+
13:50:47 <quintinb> +1 to rachaely
13:50:53 <Tanya> +1 to rachaely
13:51:07 <Joe_Humbert> I still want everyone to complain about OS issues quintinb, even developers, but it should not be "potentially indicated" as a requirement for conformance
13:51:15 <Joe_Humbert> +1 to rachaely
13:51:20 <Jamie> +1 Joe_Humbert
13:51:21 <quintinb> Ah fair point Joe_Humbert
13:51:46 <JJ> replace "underlying technology platform" with "operating system" / "underlaying operating system"? (to limit exceptions on OS level)
13:51:58 <pauljadam> +1 to "operating system"
13:52:02 <Jamie> +1
13:52:04 <JJ> ack Jamie
13:52:07 <Tanya> +1
13:52:42 <Joe_Humbert> Also really want to figure out how to convince Google, Apple, react, etc. to fix accessibility issues more quickly and provide updates.
13:53:07 <quintinb> Jamie Talking about limitation of the underlying platform - maybe add something along the lines of "developers are encourage to file defect with the platform itself."
13:53:41 <quintinb> I was hoping to point out that as part of an audit, developers should be able to say "OS limitation - here's the evidence" and they can still pass the audit
13:53:42 <shoobe01> And when we talk about frameworks, etc to make choices that consider a11y when deciding which to go with, vs it always being a get out of jail free card that "the underlying layer doesn't do that easily"
13:54:33 <quintinb> but this does NOT apply to flutter / react native. That's a code / practice choice
13:55:29 <pauljadam> techniques could be platform specific
13:55:44 <quintinb> +1 pauljadam
13:56:42 <Joe_Humbert> +1 to quintinb
13:57:55 <JJ> ACTION: Think of ways to collect limitations of underlaying layers (e.g. operating system, framework, etc.)
13:58:16 <JJ> move to the next agedum
13:58:22 <JJ> move to the next agendum
13:58:24 <JJ> move to the next item
13:58:35 <JJ> move to next agenda item
13:58:36 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 2.5.3 Label in Name -- taken up [from JJ]
13:58:57 <quintinb> Sounds like you need a macro JJ
13:59:06 <JJ> Check the PR: https://github.com/w3c/matf/pull/223/files
13:59:49 <quintinb> chat soon!
13:59:52 <quintinb> bye
14:00:26 <JJ> Zakim, list participants
14:00:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been quintinb, shoobe, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, Tanya, Jamie, Tim, rachaely
14:00:40 <JJ> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-minutes.html JJ
14:01:00 <JJ> rrsagent, bye
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-actions.rdf :
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Turn the examples in note 2 into example blocks [1]
14:01:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc#T13-18-51
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Clear up the layer terminology (using examples?) [2]
14:01:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc#T13-19-10
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Remove "Features required for meeting system requirements" from examples? [3]
14:01:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc#T13-46-30
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Add more examples of 'essential' exception [4]
14:01:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc#T13-46-46
14:01:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Think of ways to collect limitations of underlaying layers (e.g. operating system, framework, etc.) [5]
14:01:00 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-matf-irc#T13-57-55