Meeting minutes
Jan: presenting WCAG2Mobile, what we're working on and hopefully get feedback from attendees. https://
… Jan covered the history slide, MATF influenced WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, but we haven't published updates since 2015
(slide 5) New draft note published in May 2025. Focus is mostly on Android apps and iOS apps, but also reviewing hybrid apps. Have completed 46% of Level A and AA SCs.
(slide 6) November 2025 release completed 57% SCs and includes several definitions (ex: what 'page' means in an app). Some of the definitions have shown which SCs do not apply to mobile apps (ex: page titled and navigation). Jan described the differences between WCAG2ICT and MATF focuses.
… (slide 7) 2nd Group draft note expected in Q1 2026. 71% SC complete and 11 definitions are expected.
… (slide 8) Group note is expected by the end of 2026. The majority of definitions should be complete, and 16 SCs will remain.
https://
… (slide 9) Jan explains why MATF was needed by showing the SCs and definitions that were previously missing. Follow links on this slide to get to the associated github issues.
James Craig: The way we handled it in ARIA is that the spec is independent from the platform and we've moved the recommendations to a living standard model so that we do not have to update our complete standards every time Android or iOS releases OS updates. Could be something to consider for MATF.
… opened the call for feedback
jcraig: you've made a strong case for how mobile platforms are different from the web. I heard that this makes the case that this work shouldn't be done by W3C. This is a reason why EN 3549 and ETSI have started their own definitions and specs. If this work continues I would hope that this closely ties into the other work.
jcraig: We are missing other standards organizations and people's voices at this table since W3C (the parent org of WAI and WCAG) is web-focused.
Jan: I could see a future where WCAG2ICT covers all the things we're identifying as needs. We'll see if the re-chartering can broaden the scope to cover them.
jcraig: The document on screen is structured like a normative document. But it doesn't list clearly what referenced documents inside this are normative vs informative.
Shadi: so, is that a matter of presentation?
jcraig: I'll commit to a better read to clarify my POV. Clarity of presentation is part of it. As long as a lay reader can understand the difference between normative and informative reference. Another part is that other standards groups (ex: AITA) are missing from the review or influence of this document.
Jan: I picked up this work because we needed to have something in our standards work since legislative bodies do reference it. This will affect vendors and we do want their voices in it. We can go upstream from here into WCAG2ICT and see good outcomes. If there is a better place to work on this where Google and Apple could work on this we should
look at that.
<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to ask about the relationship between this and WCAG2ICT and to discuss the same issue with WCAG3 as an example, perhaps as a joint deliverable
Shadi: We can look at the presentation of documentation with W3C staff and make it more clear - including the framing of the entire document.
Some back and forth on specific things missing from EN standards and how AAA SCs were handled.
jcraig: why is this separate from WCAG2ICT?
Jan: not sure of history, but I am working on mobile apps daily and learned about MATF and decided to continue the work on a note that wasn't ever finished. There is definitely overlap. MATF focus goes beyond the WCAG2ICT scope.
jcraig: maybe it is worth considering moving the mobile web topics to WCAG2ICT and the app related topics into different documentation.
jcraig: WCAG 3 is trying to move away from specific web focus and could be another place for this topic to be worked on and create a joint deliverable or liaisons between the group.
<jcraig> ATIA: https://
Jan: Agree and we've been working on definitions of view with WCAG 3 and other topics where appropriate. 3.0 is still 5 years away but organizations are struggling with 2.2 today, so we need to continue to work on this to support them. It is really a fragmented field so there is a lot of work to be done.
Shadi: A lot of new devices have arrived on the scene since landscape orientation was discussed and the SC was created. Your conversations could be helpful in informing 3.0 work.
Jan: walked through the MATF doc's description of 1.3.4. The group's suggestion is that the app should support all the orientation the device offers.
Shadi: we made a lot of assumptions with tablets being a big driver in those conversations. Do those assumptions still work? Or do the 'new' landscape options change those assumptions and require and update?
Shadi: when you say 'we feel' is that driven by user needs?
Jan: Mostly our groups experience and we haven't done user research on the topic, yet.
Shadi: We made the same mistake. Given all the contexts and devices I am seeing that supporting them all is beyond what users actually need or use. Not all features of a device support landscape orientation. Should we require all apps to do more than that? This conversation becomes very device specific and creates a nuance of app orientation.
Jan: I agree and I think that is why some legislative bodies are starting to make their decisions about this now. MATF we feel that however a user uses their device should be supported. The practical sense it feels that there isn't much reason to support the orientation change but from an accessibility view it should be supported.
Shadi: I'm encouraging us to look into more of the guidance built on these assumptions to improve both 3.0 and MATF work.