12:57:16 RRSAgent has joined #matf 12:57:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/03-matf-irc 12:57:20 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:57:21 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ 12:57:25 Zakim, this is MATF 3 June 2026 12:57:25 got it, JJ 12:58:00 MATF 3 June 2026 12:58:04 Meeting: MATF 3 June 2026 12:58:08 chair+ 12:58:18 agenda+ Project Planning update\ 12:58:26 agenda+ 2.5.3 Label in Name - Note 2 12:58:31 agenda+ 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) 12:58:37 agenda+ Software layer definitions 13:01:07 ryomtoob has joined #matf 13:01:13 present+ 13:02:20 quintinb has joined #MATF 13:02:34 scribe: quintinb 13:02:40 present+ 13:02:45 Tanya has joined #matf 13:02:53 present+ 13:02:56 tayef has joined #matf 13:03:39 RobW has joined #matf 13:03:43 present+ 13:04:00 present+ 13:04:11 Joe_Humbert has joined #matf 13:04:39 move to next agendum 13:04:39 agendum 1 -- Project Planning update\ -- taken up [from JJ] 13:04:42 present+ 13:04:46 sam-estoesta has joined #matf 13:04:46 https://github.com/w3c/matf/milestone/4 13:04:54 present+ 13:08:41 q? 13:10:10 q+ any issues that need someone to own? 13:10:18 ack ryomtoob 13:10:44 https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/271 13:11:14 Detlev has joined #matf 13:11:20 present+ 13:13:08 move to next agendum 13:13:08 agendum 2 -- 2.5.3 Label in Name - Note 2 -- taken up [from JJ] 13:13:17 https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/39#issuecomment-4555059469 13:13:30 [note2:Where multiple controls are grouped into a single user interface component, their labels may be exposed as custom accessibility actions on the parent rather than combined into the name.] 13:16:08 q+ 13:19:55 ack Detlev 13:19:57 q+ 13:22:48 q+ 13:24:39 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/label-in-name 13:24:41 Detlev: It's important to note what 2.5.3 was meant to deliver that a speech control user can speak the visible label - it would be difficult to define what you need in there, you may have a long accessible name which would be bad for users, so everything in that is in there would need to be spoken. This whole success criteria is difficult in those 13:24:41 situations when you don't have a small control next to it. Sometimes you can bypass the whole reading, whereas actions being available you can open them up. It would be more straightforward to expect users to know they can do that. Speaking the entire text would be cumbersome and not something I think would be recommended. Having it in the name 13:24:41 would be restrictive and not prescriptive. It seems like a grey area, we need to recognize that. I would loathe to mandate include everything in the accessible name simply because it's there. It seems bad usability for screen reader users and not much gain 13:24:50 ack ryomtoob 13:25:33 q+ 13:25:49 ryomtoob I see where DetLev is coming from and where Paul is coming from. The confusion is that controls being invisible. The actions are separate from the control. I don't know if we can add a note for accessibility actions in another success criteria? 13:26:27 ack RobW 13:28:49 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/label-in-name#dfn-label 13:29:41 RobW Does Paul detail why those two labels should be present in the name? I realise I'm asking Paul to justify something when he's not hear. There's never a nice answer. I think I understand why Paul is asking for this, and what Detlev is talking about. When activation does not lead to the expected action it can be disruptive. The overall 13:29:41 experience that Paul is talking about does seem incredibly confusing to me. If you interpret WCAG 2.5.3 Success criteria for labels [reads it]. For me "Adds to card" is a separate component which is a custom action. I disagree that custom actions should be hidden, and that the custom action name should be included in the parent control if it's 13:29:41 visible 13:31:14 ack Detlev 13:31:19 RobW detlev put it well. I don't think it;s part of the label 13:33:52 Detlev Adding to what ryomtoob said: that the controls should not be hidden - maybe it's better to have call to action controls focusable on their own. For example for hundreds of elements just have focus stops. No one would say something is not keyboard accessible because you have to activate and then get the actions. In the native context, you 13:33:52 can have a focus stops and further actions which are hidden. 13:33:58 Sorry I got lost after that 13:35:40 Poll: Note 2 for 2.5.3 Label in Name. Keep as drafted? Vote +1. Add extra requirement for "visible controls"? Vote 0. Remove the second note. Vote -1 13:36:04 I can try to draft note text to explain options for dealing with card-like things... 13:37:00 We need more work on that.. 13:37:07 +1 13:37:21 what about instead of separate sentences about controls being visible, the note reads "Where multiple visible controls are grouped into a single user interface component"? 13:37:27 +1 (but probably add smth about availability of custom actions within one click - what detlev was suggesting) 13:37:33 +1 13:37:49 +1 with the differecne that I think it can be OK if controls are visible... 13:38:02 +1 13:38:10 +1 but agree that we need to continue to work on the note itself 13:38:12 (also +1 to Tanya's suggestion - I feel there should also be an alternative to the custom action) 13:38:46 +1 to the spirit of the note, but yes we can still work on the wording 13:39:18 (assuming -1 on behalf of pauljadam) 13:40:31 ACTION: Poll results for 2.5.3 are 7x +1, 1x -1 - with comments to improve the wording to clarify visible controls / activation simplicity 13:41:21 Detlev is it possible to have graphics? It might help clarify the issues 13:42:48 move to next agendum 13:42:48 agendum 3 -- 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) -- taken up [from JJ] 13:43:42 q+ 13:44:39 https://www.w3.org/standards/types/#x2-5-3-statements 13:46:02 https://www.w3.org/TR/?filter-tr-name=&status%5B%5D=stmt\ 13:47:16 ack shoobe01 13:47:17 q+ 13:47:18 ack shoobe 13:48:33 shoobe01 we have a lot of specific problems like units, which will create confusion which is hard. Can we make our own success criteria? Can we make our own statement so that people will find it? Do we put a link? 13:49:21 https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/ 13:49:49 shoobe01 is there a writing guide for these? Do we copy the existing ones? 13:49:58 Would these be normative? 13:54:02 shoobe01 I can talk about this for a long time - I doubt we want anything resembling the findings to be in a note like this. I'll start roughly organsing to see if we're on the right page 13:55:48 shoobe01 hopefully this get's absorbed into WCAG3 13:56:01 move to next agendum 13:56:01 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JJ 13:56:05 q? 13:56:08 ack ryomtoob 13:56:52 ryomtoob I was wondering if we had any thoughts about referencing apple and google's documentation? I was scrolling through the note, and we don't have them. Do we plan on factoring them in? 13:57:11 shoobe01 They don't provide scientific data or math - which is why we didn't 13:58:37 shoobe01 I would wonder if we would be allowed to do it? Maybe we can avoid brand names and roll it into guidance 13:58:42 Zakim, close the queue 13:58:42 ok, JJ, the speaker queue is closed 13:58:54 ryomtoob Maybe something generic to reference "Owners of the systems" 13:59:29 Miro board invite link: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVGCgwkGY=/?share_link_id=724271040664 14:00:25 Thanks everyone 14:00:31 Have a nice baby JJ 14:00:52 Thx ;) Maybe see you next week, maybe not... 14:01:27 Zakim, list participants 14:01:27 As of this point the attendees have been ryomtoob, quintinb, Tanya, RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, sam-estoesta, Detlev 14:01:36 rrsagent, make minutes 14:01:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/03-matf-minutes.html JJ 14:02:40 zakim, bye 14:02:40 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been ryomtoob, quintinb, Tanya, RobW, tayef, Joe_Humbert, sam-estoesta, Detlev 14:02:40 Zakim has left #matf