12:50:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #matf
12:50:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/15-matf-irc
12:50:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:50:21 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ
12:50:22 <JJ> Zakim, this is MATF 15 April 2026
12:50:22 <Zakim> got it, JJ
12:50:31 <JJ> Meeting: MATF 15 April 2026
12:50:35 <JJ> chair+
12:50:41 <JJ> agenda+ 2.4.2 Page Titled proposal
12:51:01 <JJ> agenda+ 3.1.1 Language of Page proposal
12:51:06 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.3 Label in Name proposal
12:51:10 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.7 Dragging Movements proposal
12:51:14 <JJ> agenda+ 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) proposal
12:51:19 <JJ> agenda+ Software layers
12:51:24 <JJ> agenda+ 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
12:56:25 <JJ> zakim, agenda?
12:56:25 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
12:56:26 <Zakim> 1. 2.4.2 Page Titled proposal [from JJ]
12:56:26 <Zakim> 2. 3.1.1 Language of Page proposal [from JJ]
12:56:26 <Zakim> 3. 2.5.3 Label in Name proposal [from JJ]
12:56:26 <Zakim> 4. 2.5.7 Dragging Movements proposal [from JJ]
12:56:26 <Zakim> 5. 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) proposal [from JJ]
12:56:27 <Zakim> 6. Software layers [from JJ]
12:56:27 <Zakim> 7. 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) [from JJ]
13:01:43 <quintinb> quintinb has joined #MATF
13:01:57 <sam_e> sam_e has joined #matf
13:02:06 <quintinb> scribe: quintinb
13:02:48 <tayef> tayef has joined #matf
13:03:23 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 3
13:03:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.5.3 Label in Name proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:03:28 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 0
13:03:28 <Zakim> agendum 0 -- 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) -- taken up [from JJ]
13:03:34 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 3
13:03:34 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.5.3 Label in Name proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:03:59 <Joe_Humbert> Joe_Humbert has joined #matf
13:04:02 <RobW> RobW has joined #matf
13:04:06 <RobW> present+
13:04:14 <tayef> present+
13:04:40 <Joe_Humbert> present+
13:05:00 <pauljadam> pauljadam has joined #matf
13:05:08 <pauljadam> present+
13:09:41 <pauljadam> I would worry about allowing people to code "secondary labels" in something other than the a11yName property.
13:10:03 <pauljadam> even if the visible label is very large, then it should all be in the name still
13:10:53 <pauljadam> on iOS native you don't even have an accessible description property, we only have the Hint which can be turned off
13:11:07 <pauljadam> so you have to shove everything into the .accessibilityLabel
13:11:54 <pauljadam> define "other accessibility properties" the WCAG SC is called "Label in Name" so they are specifically saying the a11yName
13:13:14 <shoobe01> shoobe01 has joined #matf
13:13:18 <shoobe01> Present+
13:13:22 <pauljadam> q+
13:14:13 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:14:34 <quintinb> pauljadam: The WCAG is called "Label in Name" - how can we allow anything in except in the name
13:14:40 <RobW> RobW has joined #matf
13:15:23 <quintinb> pauljadam for VoiceControl we just want the first word shown. But it's not relevant to this success criterion
13:16:29 <quintinb> pauljadam the way to avoid putting everything in the name is to separate the components. If you put it in the hint and they have hints turned off. I've seen weird things like put things in the value. The label is pretty much all you have
13:16:38 <RobW> q+
13:17:07 <quintinb> contentDescription, stateDescription, roleDescription are what available (off the top of my head while scribing)
13:17:29 <JJ> ack RobW
13:18:41 <quintinb> RobW on user input labels - they're not just for Voice Control, they can be used for Keyboard - which is why you want all the text. What I would use a value for - possible disagreement - if you have something not editable, then you might put the label as "Downloads" and the value "# of downloads"
13:18:58 <quintinb> pauljadam you can code it like that but we don't have that on web
13:21:30 <quintinb> pauljadam the success criterion does clearly mention "name"
13:21:32 <Tanya> Tanya has joined #matf
13:21:56 <quintinb> pauljadam if users have hints turned off - is this written for testers or developer or both?
13:22:11 <Tanya> present+
13:22:50 <quintinb> pauljadam Voice Control users can use the numbers if the name isn't working
13:23:48 <RobW> +1 to removing the second sentence from the first note.
13:24:11 <pauljadam> I like the a11y actions note
13:24:14 <RobW> q+
13:24:20 <JJ> ack RobW
13:25:26 <quintinb> RobW no objections on the last note. On the 2nd note I have mixed feelings, I agree with Paul that we should not encourage hiding information because of a hint. I don't want to make auditors feel that they should fail because not everything is in the label
13:25:54 <pauljadam> I think the best practice about the label first in the name should talk more about how if the name is not first then voice control wont see the first word of the label, like if you put the label in the middle or the end of the name then they will see some other word in the Show Names feature
13:26:05 <JJ> Poll: For 2.5.3 first note, do we keep the added second sentence ("This is particularly important for voice control users who rely on speaking the visible text to interact with user interface components.") or omit it?
13:26:19 <JJ> +1 to keep it, -1 to omit it
13:26:20 <pauljadam> -1
13:26:22 <quintinb> -1
13:26:24 <RobW> -1
13:26:26 <sam_e> -1
13:26:36 <Tanya> 0
13:26:36 <Joe_Humbert> -1
13:26:38 <pauljadam> q+
13:26:46 <tayef> 0
13:26:56 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:27:18 <JJ> Poll result: 5x -1 and 2x 0 -> leaning towards removing the 2nd sentence
13:27:26 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:27:37 <quintinb> pauljadam we might want to talk about how "show names" operates for Voice Control and how this is a usability enhancement.
13:27:44 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:28:04 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert we need an iOS specific example in the note
13:28:18 <Joe_Humbert> don't need*
13:28:47 <quintinb> Thanks Joe_Humbert! My bad
13:28:51 <JJ> Poll: For 2.5.3 second note, do we keep it (+1), remove it (-1) or modify it (0 with comment)
13:29:03 <pauljadam> -1
13:29:24 <quintinb> -1
13:29:25 <Joe_Humbert> -1
13:29:27 <RobW> 0 - needs more thought.
13:29:38 <Tanya> 0 - note sure
13:29:43 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:29:52 <tayef> 0 not sure
13:29:58 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:30:02 <shoobe01> 0 (worried I misssed too much of the argument to remove being late)
13:30:17 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert why do we need this note at all - we're being more prescriptive than we need to be
13:31:05 <JJ> Poll results: 3x -1 and 4x 0 -> mostly leaning towards removing it or thinking about changes
13:31:21 <JJ> Poll: For 2.5.3 third note, do we keep it (+1), remove it (-1) or modify it (0 with comment)
13:31:24 <pauljadam> +1
13:31:28 <quintinb> +1
13:31:31 <shoobe01> +1
13:31:36 <RobW> +1
13:31:38 <Joe_Humbert> 0
13:31:44 <sam_e> + 1
13:31:54 <Tanya> +1
13:32:06 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:32:07 <tayef> +1
13:32:19 <JJ> Poll results: 7x +1 and 1x 0 -> mostly leaning towards keeping it as is
13:32:20 <pauljadam> last note makes sense because it's not saying anything that goes against WCAG, it's basically explaining how you can use a11y actions or have separate CTA controls
13:32:24 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:32:45 <pauljadam> Remove the nested part
13:32:48 <pauljadam> just say separate
13:32:58 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert - I am worried about saying nested controls - we don't want controls inside others as it create problems. It can easily break touch target size
13:33:18 <JJ> Labels of controls may be exposed as custom accessibility actions
13:33:37 <pauljadam> q+
13:33:39 <JJ> (e.g. seperately focusable elements being allowed is implied because thats always allowed)
13:33:44 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert I see a11y actions are to make additional actions on one control
13:34:08 <quintinb> I have seen this for "card" behaviour where the card does the main thing, and then there are "sub" actions
13:34:33 <quintinb> Music player: Play the song, actions: add to list, favourite, etc
13:35:15 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert my worry is that name is that there would be lots of repition
13:35:20 <quintinb> *repitition
13:35:53 <quintinb> "Queen: Another one bites the dust. Button. Actions available"
13:35:58 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:36:49 <quintinb> pauljadam Maybe the whole card is tappable with smaller actions / buttons - do the actions need to be part of the card? Do you need to cycle through the actions in order to discover them?
13:37:22 <quintinb> pauljadam some cards are split into many components - maybe we need to re-word based on what we're expecting
13:38:02 <quintinb> ooof - I'm glad I'm not at Spotify anymore!
13:38:12 <quintinb> That would make the card state super complex
13:38:34 <quintinb> "[Song] Selected, Favourited, On a List"
13:38:36 <RobW> does 'sub controls' work? Implying a control related to the parent, rather than a more generic 'nested'.
13:38:59 <pauljadam> sub control sounds good
13:39:09 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 1
13:39:09 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- 2.4.2 Page Titled proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:39:17 <pauljadam> or we could just say a11y actions or actions
13:39:19 <shoobe01> An all encompassing row/card with sub-actions is IME very dangerous. I avoid it always, if this discussion was style guide/designsystem I'd argue to ban that but... I know we cannot. "Subordinate" def discussion then is interesting.
13:39:30 <JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/9#issuecomment-4242557542
13:42:13 <pauljadam> q+
13:42:53 <JJ> Page definition: https://w3c.github.io/matf/#page
13:43:24 <shoobe01> q+
13:44:42 <JJ> q+ Tanya
13:44:45 <JJ> ack Tanya
13:45:07 <quintinb> Tanya I just added the latest comments of Joe and Steven and processed - nothing to add
13:45:13 <JJ> ack pauljadam
13:46:26 <Joe_Humbert> q+
13:46:41 <quintinb> pauljadam Where it says "a visible title is not feasible then it's not required" - I don't know how to code an invisible title. There is a navigationTitle property - there are programatic property that exposes a heading. I also worry that its a best practice to mark it as a heading semantically because that almost seems like a requirement
13:47:30 <quintinb> pauljadam you can't make a title on the web invisible - it's always visible though
13:47:48 <quintinb> pauljadam if we're worred about modal because they aren't pages
13:48:36 <shoobe01> No!!!!
13:48:55 <quintinb> pauljadam I think the heading is more important in apps - could a non-heading label be accepted as a heading, but we always check that
13:49:29 <quintinb> pauljadam I feel that Android should make it a heading semantically
13:49:45 <JJ> ack shoobe
13:51:00 <quintinb> shoobe01 Almost every design product team that a dialog is contextual to the page but even for sighted people it's not. How fixed is this?
13:51:11 <pauljadam> shoobe01 are you wanting a visible title for a dialog or an accessible name for the dialog? or both?
13:52:17 <JJ> q?
13:52:59 <quintinb> shoobe01 in general I think it's best practice to mark it as a heading
13:53:02 <pauljadam> Because on iOS you can give a11y containers an accessible name so you can have a dialog with an a11y name if you want and also give the dialog a visible heading if you want
13:53:36 <JJ> ack Joe_Humbert
13:53:58 <pauljadam> Not sure it's critical to be a heading but critical to be visible.
13:54:00 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert I disagree that the page title needs to be a heading - this is just about the visible text
13:54:29 <pauljadam> usually though titles of sections of content become headings
13:54:31 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert in iOS this is an apple convention that can change.
13:54:47 <quintinb> Joe_Humbert I agree it should be best practice
13:54:50 <pauljadam> heading requirements can go under headings SC is fine
13:55:04 <pauljadam> I don't think invisible is allowed
13:56:06 <pauljadam> top of the page makes sense but then you may have tab bar based app where the selected tab could be a title yep
13:57:56 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 2
13:57:56 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- 3.1.1 Language of Page proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:58:07 <JJ> Have a look at: https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/14#issuecomment-4242723808
13:58:11 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 4
13:58:11 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 2.5.7 Dragging Movements proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:58:20 <JJ> Have a look at: https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/53#issuecomment-4178692737
13:58:24 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 5
13:58:24 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) proposal -- taken up [from JJ]
13:58:36 <JJ> Have a look at: https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/270#issuecomment-4069206285 and the Miro board
13:58:40 <JJ> Zakim, move to agendum 6
13:58:40 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Software layers -- taken up [from JJ]
13:58:46 <JJ> Have a look at: https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/10#issuecomment-4122724941
14:00:22 <JJ> Zakim, list participants
14:00:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, shoobe, Tanya,  1
14:00:28 <JJ> present+ sam_e
14:00:36 <JJ> present- 1
14:00:39 <JJ> Zakim, list participants
14:00:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, shoobe, Tanya,  1, sam_e
14:00:48 <JJ> present-  1
14:00:51 <JJ> Zakim, list participants
14:00:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, shoobe, Tanya,  1, sam_e
14:00:59 <JJ> present- " 1"
14:01:01 <JJ> present- "  1"
14:01:05 <JJ> present-   1
14:01:07 <JJ> Zakim, list participants
14:01:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, shoobe, Tanya,  1, sam_e
14:01:13 <JJ> rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/15-matf-minutes.html JJ
14:01:47 <JJ> zakim, bye
14:01:47 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, pauljadam, shoobe, Tanya,  1, sam_e
14:01:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #matf
14:43:13 <JJ> JJ has joined #matf
14:43:15 <JJ> zakim, bye
14:43:20 <JJ> rrsagent, bye
14:43:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items