– DRAFT –
COGA review of WCAG 3

Scheduling link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.uggxirp4slpc

5 seconds of motion link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.7btf7qjplo1i#heading=h.ug544rrtrwde

burden on memory link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.uubdkgkddw8k#heading=h.rhjlfc148kcp

Kirkwood question about links for COGA meetings

Kirkwood has multiple invites in his personal calendar for the Monday COGA task force meetings.

julierawe suggested that kirkwood delete all of his personal calendar's old/legacy COGA invites and start fresh to try to reduce the duplication.

Animation: Align on updated issue about 5 seconds of motion, including new comment from Mary Jo

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.7btf7qjplo1i#heading=h.ug544rrtrwde

Back-up option: Interactive components second discussion

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.qrwl38yxhls4

Group discussed issue 8 about expected behavior: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.qrwl38yxhls4#heading=h.t81nnfwhnuxv

Group discussed the example of the assertion about standard interface designs and whether it could be turned into a requirement.

Group shortened the example so we only show the 3rd bullet.

Group aligned on wording.

Issue #9: Standard user interface designs for the platform are used when applicable.”

oops, wrong wording

Issue #9: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.qrwl38yxhls4#heading=h.n1gk82gatm3g

Discussion about issue #9 led us to update issue #5 with a paragraph about maps. julierawe will flag Lisa and Jennifer that they need to revote on this when we share with the task force.

Group discussed assistive touch and whether it needs to be explicitly mentioned in this guideline.

Group aligned and voted on issue #9.

Group discussed issue #10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.qrwl38yxhls4#heading=h.51y6l2csrzba

Lisa's concern about rolling back to older interfaces is mentioned in an issue we drafted for Help and Feedback issue. For this reason, we are removing this here.

Group discussed whether user testing is especially important for Expected Behavior guideline.

Group discussed whether to draft a general issue about what the logic is for requiring user testing in some guidelines and not in others.

ACTION: item: Len to draft general issue about user testing

Group discussed Lisa comment about putting controls in industry standard locations and how this is a more specific requirement than what is in current draft of "Consistent control location"

LenB mentioned there is a platform standard but not an industry standard.

LenB: The consistent control location should be scoped to a particular product.

<LenB> I would recommend 'current platform' standard with respect to backawards compability.

Group aligned on a new issue called "Consistent control location."