– DRAFT –
MATF 3 June 2026

<JJ> MATF 3 June 2026

Project Planning update\

<JJ> https://github.com/w3c/matf/milestone/4

<JJ> w3c/matf#271

2.5.3 Label in Name - Note 2

<JJ> w3c/matf#39 (comment)

<JJ> [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.]

<JJ> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/label-in-name

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

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

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

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?

<JJ> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/label-in-name#dfn-label

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

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

visible

RobW detlev put it well. I don't think it;s part of the label

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

can have a focus stops and further actions which are hidden.

Sorry I got lost after that

<JJ> 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

<Detlev> I can try to draft note text to explain options for dealing with card-like things...

<Detlev> We need more work on that..

<RobW> +1

<ryomtoob> 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"?

<Tanya> +1 (but probably add smth about availability of custom actions within one click - what detlev was suggesting)

<quintinb> +1

<Detlev> +1 with the differecne that I think it can be OK if controls are visible...

<tayef> +1

<sam-estoesta> +1 but agree that we need to continue to work on the note itself

<RobW> (also +1 to Tanya's suggestion - I feel there should also be an alternative to the custom action)

<ryomtoob> +1 to the spirit of the note, but yes we can still work on the wording

<JJ> (assuming -1 on behalf of pauljadam)

ACTION: Poll results for 2.5.3 are 7x +1, 1x -1 - with comments to improve the wording to clarify visible controls / activation simplicity

Detlev is it possible to have graphics? It might help clarify the issues

2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)

<JJ> https://www.w3.org/standards/types/#x2-5-3-statements

<JJ> https://www.w3.org/TR/?filter-tr-name=&status%5B%5D=stmt\

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?

<JJ> https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/

shoobe01 is there a writing guide for these? Do we copy the existing ones?

Would these be normative?

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

shoobe01 hopefully this get's absorbed into WCAG3

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?

shoobe01 They don't provide scientific data or math - which is why we didn't

shoobe01 I would wonder if we would be allowed to do it? Maybe we can avoid brand names and roll it into guidance

ryomtoob Maybe something generic to reference "Owners of the systems"

<JJ> Miro board invite link: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVGCgwkGY=/?share_link_id=724271040664

Thanks everyone

Have a nice baby JJ

<JJ> Thx ;) Maybe see you next week, maybe not...