Meeting minutes
date: August 3rd, 2026
Holidays
Lisa: COGA usually takes the last two weeks of August or sometimes also the first week of September.
Lisa: We could take August 24th and August 31st.
julierawe: September 7th is Labor Day.
Lisa: We could take 3 weeks off?
charli will be out on August 24th
Lisa can't make August 31st
tiffanyburtin and LenB can do either of the August 24 and 31.
<tiffanyburtin> I'm flexible for all dates.
ACTION: item: julierawe will cancel August 31 and September 7 meetings. We will poll the group next week to see about August 24.
ACTION: item: julierawe will cancel September 21 due to Yom Kippur.
WCAG 3 update for Lisa on what we've done and what is left
Lisa: We went over most of the Problem and Task Completion draft issues. We did not do the first one because it is complicated.
Lisa: We got through most of them. We did not finish the last one.
Lisa: We did not do the missing user needs.
Lisa: It was a small call but we made a lot of progress. There are two issues left, plus missing user needs.
Lisa: I can attend this Thursday.
julierawe: There will also be a research subgroup call tomorrow.
5 seconds of motion
Link to the updated draft github issue: https://
<LenB> julierawe: do we want to have an issue advocating for 1) don't allow 5 seconds of motion unless initiated by user, or 2) strongly advocate for respecting user settings?
<LenB> ... this appears in No Visual Motion and in No Visual Motion No Exceptions.
Link to "No visual motion" in WCAG 3: https://
<LenB> ...COGA has already requested we remove psuedo-motion from this provision since it doesn't really fit.
<LenB> ... What should WCAG 3 say about motion lasting more than 5 seconds?
<kirkwood_> I actually think it’s saying no pseudo motion or motion lasting more than 5 seconds.
<Rachael> Yes they will stay that way.
<LenB> julierawe: the next editor's draft the testing section can be accessed by the link in the provision name. That link goes to an informative doc containing the tests.
<kirkwood_> Which would be fine
<LenB> Lisa: 5 seconds is too long. I don't know what the current provisdion is trying to achieve.
<kirkwood_> Fair point lisa, agree
<LenB> julierawe read through our current GitHub issue.
<Jan> What research do they have to back the 5-second limit?
<kirkwood_> Bouncing, vibrating letters?
<Lisa> bad
<tiffanyburtin> User action or User preference may produce motion. Often you select what kind of notification pop ups you receive.
<kirkwood_> Need more than that
Lisa: I agree with the idea but I don't like the term "micro-interactions"
Lisa: Maybe just call them "permitted interactions."
Lisa: When is it a changing background, you've come on the site and a small logo fades in--is that allowed?
Lisa: "permitted motions"
<Lisa> Maybe just call them "permitted motion@
tiffanyburtin: Unnecessary motion such as fading logos, bouncing text, auto-playing movies, those are not the users' choice
<tiffanyburtin> Essential alerts
<tiffanyburtin> I believe this reduction in motion will be wonderful for so many people
<Jan> I heard that you are asking them to define what is meant by motion, which is good, but hopefully, we can get WCAG 3 to not allow motion without user consent, but we really need motion / pseudo motion to be better defined.
<LenB> julierawe: Our goal is to flag issues with the way WCAG 3 is developing. Holding on to WCAG 2's 5 seconds of motion is not a good thing to maintain in WCAG 3.
<LenB> julierawe: as a group do we think the recommendations are OK? its not exhaustive - is it in the right direction?
<LenB> julierawe: do we think this needs more work? more alignment from us so that we can get this to the subgroup?
<kirkwood_> Should it be 5 seconds of unexpected motion? (Not quite)
<Lisa> +1 to Jan!
<kirkwood_> The reality is that the internet ecosystem has so many more dynamic elements sone the time this was first published.
<LenB> Jan: Still concerned with the lack of what's included in motion. Users need to know what they are initiating. It's too easy to initiate something that could be harmful to you. There are a lot of reasons you may swipe and you may not know that it will trigger that causes harm. There should be some communication to the user about what will happen
<LenB> before they swipe. Give the user a choice to have a fully static experience or an experience that will have the following types of motion.
<LenB> julierawe: Are you saying we need to do a user preference provision?
<LenB> Jan: Yes. The user should have a choice of static or to have motion.
<LenB> julierawe: There is a provision about respecting user settings. So, the provision we're working on in the Animation section which is targeting experiences for users not on the personal devices.
<tiffanyburtin> I think that is why we have suggested Prefers Reduced Motion. This may help Jan: https://
<LenB> Jan: It still feel like this should be part of the user preference.
<LenB> julierawe: Are we OK with saying motion is OK for 5 seconds - like WCAG 2 did?
LenB: I don't think we want to keep the 5 seconds of motion from WCAG 2. I think the recommendations we have here are a good starting point to help the WCAG 3 subgroup think about how to approach this provision.
<kirkwood_> Hmmm… No looped animations?
<LenB> julierawe: It doesn't need to be exhaustive. We could add more - but it's not on us to write the provision.
<LenB> Lisa: We should ask them to add use cases for allowing motion and where it should not be allowed. We should highlight Jan's example of a user action doing more than what users expected.
<Lisa> ask them to add use cases: what we want to allow
<LenB> julierawe: adding to the issue description that we are still thinking about where we draw the line between this provision and the users' settings supported.
<kirkwood_> +1 to alisa
<LenB> Lisa: I think the idea of a button getting a little bigger on hover can be super helpful for some people. That kind of motion should be allowed.
<kirkwood_> S/alisa/lisa
<LenB> charli: I think we've been discussing what the default is - whether or not you've done anything in user settings.
<LenB> julierawe: correct
<LenB> charli: So, this kind of motion would be opt-in and not opt-out. Meaning a user has to do something to get the motion. The default would be no motion.
<LenB> julierawe: right. We're saying that we don't think the default should be 5 seconds of motion.
<tiffanyburtin> Perhaps there are studies on how many pixels of tiny motion is not harmful. I'm specifically thinking about that button enlargement. I would be open to discussing this further.
<Jan> I still think we have to distinguish the difference between a user initiating an action (swipe, press play, etc.) and that user giving their consent for unexpected motion. Users interact with content all the time and may not understand the consequence of their interaction.
<LenB> julierawe: I see a few notes we can work into the recommendations and the issue. THis group should have a clear idea of what is OK and not OK concerning motion. Looks like we're aligned with '5 seconds of default' is not OK.
<LenB> julierawe: I'll send an email out later today about other issues ready for vote.
present?