Meeting minutes
:thumbs-up
Success Criterion 2.5.3 Label in Name
<JJ> github.com/w3c/matf/pull/223
RobW I was in most of the sessions - roughly I would be happy to drop it for the draft if it's controversial, but it seems to have declined. My preference would be to keep it as you've written it
Joe_Humbert we went around in circles a bit - between the minutes and logs it's all there.
I think we can merge it
<JJ> Poll: Merge Pull Request for 2.5.3 as is (with note 2)? Agree: +1. Neutral 0. Disagree: -1.
<quintinb> +1
<shoobe01> +1
<RobW> +1
<JJ> +1
I just want to confirm, is Paul's concern we're doing too much or is there a greater concern?
<Joe_Humbert> +1, I think we need to move forward and we can make changes in the final note
<JJ> Today's groups in favor of merging with 5x +1
Joe_Humbert I just want to get into the note - the reason we have had so much discussion is there is no consistency in patterns. It's a convenient pattern for dev and design, but not for users
Thanks Joe_Humbert
Success Criterion 2.5.7 Dragging Movements
<JJ> w3c/
<JJ> github.com/w3c/matf/issues/289
shoobe01 We use the terms "underlying layer" in a confusing way - we need to come up with a placeholder or something
ACTION: Update the underlying layer terminology
ACTION: Re-word "responsibility layer" so that it relates to the diagram better
Success Criterion 3.2.2 On Input
<JJ> github.com/w3c/matf/pull/294
<JJ> w3c/
Joe_Humbert Just something you said - technically if WCAG did changed the note, then we'd have to change.
<JJ> shoobe: references w3c/
shoobe01 whoever opened 198 - auto submitting information. I'm worried about the intent from understanding is that you can't just do that - if you type into a field... I'm worried we're trapping people where simple inputs can't do simple actions
<JJ> Poll: Merge PR for 3.2.2 as proposed? +1 if you agree, -1 if you do not, 0 if neutral
<quintinb> +1
<Joe_Humbert> +1
<RobW> +1
<shoobe01> 0
<JJ> +1
<JJ> Result: 4x +1 and 1x 0 for merging 3.2.2
Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
<JJ> w3c/
shoobe01 - there is something not showing on git - in the preview it's not showing as new
Joe_Humbert I think they added that somehow that we haven't figured out
Joe_Humbert I think they add the word "new" somehow
ACTION: Include the W3C difference service to easily see all of the content we've added
shoobe01 Is there a batter way to say this or do we make specific suggestions? Or better phrasing?
I do think we need to have some kind of size given.... Is the requirement that touch target size is measurable by a 3rd party?
quintinb we need to be considerate about hitslops and how they obfuscate target size from people - testability is important
RobW I am going to question quinitn's assertion that we need to take hitslops into account - on web it would be the same. You assess it the same way
shoobe01 the visible size and the target size are not necessarily to be the same. I'm lost about what JJ said we needed a note for
Definitions drafts
<JJ> w3c/
<JJ> Minutes from last week about the draft definitions: https://