Meeting minutes
<Tanya as temporary MATF facilitator>
Tanya will facilitate this meeting, and the next 3-4.
Milestone 2 issue list
Tanya: Introduces herself, works together with Jan Jaap at Abra in product owner / auditor role, will be facilitating the next meetings while Jan Jaap is on parental leave.
<Tanya> https://
Tanya: Shows list of open issues for Milestone 2
Tanya: if there is no assignee yet for an open issue, please assign yourself if you can work on it
Tanya: Shows 2.5.7 - need to update link to definition when it is finished - no assignee yet who will take care of this
Tanya: shows a couple more issues, we are close to completing all of them but need to finish the drafts in the next weeks
Tanya: Focus is to complete milestone 2; so we can move on to milestone 3 with new success criteria to discuss
Success Criterion 2.5.3 - Label in Name
Tanya: This was discussed last week
Related GitHub issue: w3c/
Tanya: Conclusion of last week was to keep the note about custom accessibility actions, but modify the wording. Detlev is assigned to draft it.
Tanya: We will discuss this in next meeting after draft is available.
Tanya: Any questions?
pauljadam: Suggests to remove the note 2.
pauljadam: OK to wait on Detlev's proposal
JJ: Meeting notes available at https://
(JJ is updating the GitHub issues with the minutes this week)
Tanya: we keep moving in circles on this note, we will await the draft and then double check with the group.
Success Criterion 2.5.8 - Target Size (Minimum)
Related minutes from last week: https://
Tanya: We need to figure out the best format for the research done by shoobe01
Tanya: Kevin White (W3C Staff) and Hidde de Vries (W3C ex-staff) were asked if a "Statement" could be an appropriate document type for touch target size recommendations.
Tanya: Shows note about Web User Agents as example
https://
Google Doc created by shoobe01: https://
currently at 12 pages.
3 pages of references.
Tanya: we'll see how to move forward with this. Can we share it with others?
JJ: Will share it with Hidde to get feedback
<shoobe01> https://
shoobe01: will continue finetuning.
Tanya: We need to figure out how to link to this draft document or note in the future from the Success Criterion itself
JJ: Suggest to link to Google Docs URL in the note for now. In the future we can update URL. If URL changes, we can put banner in Google Doc that mentions new URL.
shoobe01: asks about the note that is needed, what is the plan?
Tanya: confirms that we will now add note with 1 paragraph about reasons to use larger target size
JJ: This target size document can influence WCAG 3 in future. Unlikely WCAG2 will change
Definitions
Miro board: https://
Tanya: Underlaying layer drafts: w3c/
Tanya: The diagrams in Miro have been updated. What we need to do now is to draft the text.
Tanya: for underlaying layers, which layers do we have, and who is responsible
Tanya: user agent is an important one.
Tanya: asks shoobe01 to give update on miro
shoobe01: diagram structure is coming along pretty well. user agent replaced web(view). no problem there.
shoobe01: but we cannot say platform software because that already had a different meaning
shoobe01: need to figure out a name for that layer.
shoobe01: and avoid conflicts with other definitions.
Tanya: Looking at WCAG2ICT; they have platform software (showing WCAG2ICT doc).
shoobe01: layer jumping is not going to work with 1:1 platform software definiton because it fits too broadly
<Zakim> JJ, you wanted to ask about overriding definitions
JJ: Mentions it is possible to 'override' definitions from WCAG or WCAG2ICT with notes or making text replacements - but watch out for changing the meaning too much - meant for nuances
Tanya: brainstorming about the definitions in diagram
Tanya: the need for these definitions originally came from success criteria that have exemptions
Tanya: let's move to other definitions
Tanya: Cross-platform framework.
JJ: It was part of w3c/
Tanya: suggestion was that MATF could provide overview of which frameworks are native, and which one not
JJ: Mentions some of the background on cross-platform frameworks and the difficulty of defining what is native and what is not.
JJ: the framework alone does not guarantee something is 'native', e.g. using Jetpack Compose or SwiftUI doesn't mean it is unmodified component, could till be custom
Tanya: In WCAG2ICT they explicitly mention user agent should be applied differently, they add platform software in addition to user agent - so exception is broader
Tanya: Here we are also going in circles, it would be good to make a decision and go with that for now
Tanya: have a look at Miro diagram and definitions
<Tanya> w3c/
^ latest proposals for definitions
discussing this proposal: w3c/
Tanya: finetuning needed, but going in the right direction
Tanya: how does the group feel about "Application" definition" (Moving way from platform software from WCAG2ICT)
shoobe01: application is not mobile specific, it is a commonly used term in software
JJ: Agrees that Application could work
Tanya: need to be careful with exceptions. application level? or framework level?
Tanya: please look at the miro board and definitions for next week.