13:00:04 RRSAgent has joined #matf 13:00:09 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/16-matf-irc 13:00:09 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:00:10 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JJ 13:00:10 quintinb has joined #MATF 13:00:14 Zakim, this is MATF 3 July 2026 13:00:14 to set the meeting title please use "meeting: MATF 3 July 2026", JJ 13:00:16 scribe: quintinb 13:00:31 Meeting: MATF 3 July 2026 13:00:38 chair+ 13:00:57 agenda+ Review WCAG 3 13:01:04 agenda+ Discuss 'mobile' term 13:02:53 regrets+ Joe_Humbert 13:03:11 Tanya has joined #matf 13:04:38 move to next agendum 13:04:38 agendum 1 -- Review WCAG 3 -- taken up [from JJ] 13:04:42 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/ 13:04:45 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/ 13:04:47 RobW has joined #matf 13:04:55 present+ 13:05:41 I have been trying to make it through the doc 13:06:20 sam-estoesta has joined #matf 13:06:24 present+ 13:11:40 but it's ONLY web 13:17:34 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG3/informative/images-and-media/image-alternatives/images-detectable/ 13:18:39 https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues/605 13:27:00 https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/#out-of-scope 13:28:01 q+ 13:28:03 Why are they trying to dictate terms like "Mobile" then? 13:28:29 ^^ 13:28:54 ack RobW 13:29:00 Weird they have https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#orientation-supported-minimum 13:29:38 q+ 13:29:39 RobW what does that mean for us? If our remit is not to add to the top of WCAG, we just clarify for mobile, then that means any guidance we give is on top 13:30:23 present+ 13:30:25 q+ 13:30:57 I wonder if React Native then falls under this, but not flutter, for example 13:31:56 ack sam-estoesta 13:32:40 Zakim, list participants 13:32:40 As of this point the attendees have been RobW, sam-estoesta, Tanya 13:32:46 present+ quintinb 13:33:44 sam-estoesta My fear is that right now it's clear as mud how they want to distinguish in web 3.0 - for teams purely in compliance we need to be very clear - this could make litigation very difficult for justification. we already know the mobile app patterns - if we already know we're so many years out and if we're not clear we're just leaving an 13:33:44 entire section out to dry. I was very frustrated by yesterdays conversations. We lose both the credibility and knowledge to focus on the entire scope of technology. 13:33:54 Sorry I hope I got that right 13:34:08 you got my ramble spot on 13:34:18 🤗 13:35:38 q? 13:35:42 ack Tanya 13:36:15 I am emotionally reacting with a series of fire emojis to JJ response to my ramble 13:37:37 q+ 13:37:49 Tanya I think that the for the future we should think how there are theoretical concerns about applying terms (like mobile) and there is practical concerns. It seems like it's the small group of people making the drafts. Even though ECAG was supposed to be agnostic. Someone needs to structure it well and we're underrepresented in the broader group. 13:37:49 It's a lot of volunteering work and it's a lot of time. If there is some one from our group that con contribute to their group maybe we can have some input there. But it's difficult to make a choice there 13:38:20 ack RobW 13:39:16 I think they changed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to W3C Accessibility Guidelines earlier to try to make it apply beyond "Web Content". 13:39:48 RobW I think I follow why they want to make WCAG 3 web only. It's been non-web implicitly for a while. I don't see this not being applied to non-web in practice. We can't say that legal precedence removing all non-web requirements just because of WCAG 3. They'll use it anyway 13:41:52 q? 13:42:57 ACTION: WCAG 3 lists 'non-web technologies' to be out of scope - what does this mean for mobile applications and other software; what happens if someone would still try to apply WCAG 3 to these types of technologies 13:43:21 I really like the assertions 13:43:58 I rotated my laptop and nothing happened 🤷 13:45:32 Someone needs to define default here 13:45:49 q+ 13:46:02 Because if I hold my phone in landscape all the time, you'd be surprised at what I expect to be default 13:46:17 q+ 13:47:08 ack RobW 13:49:01 RobW I think I may just ramble - I just don't like this. Thinking about phones, they have a default orientation, they have a mic and speaker in specific positions. But this seems like a very easy get-out for not supporting orientation. Maybe this is just to reflect the reality that they don't support. It doesn't feel vgood. As for "align with the 13:49:01 real world" - this makes sense to me as you may be using maps etc in a certain orientation. 13:50:24 ack sam-estoesta 13:52:07 sam-estoesta As we're going through this, it's clear mobile needs to be here significantly. I wonder if there's any politicking we need to do to get in there. If we're ready from this initial conversation, there has to be a broader conversation. If we don't make sure the importance of mobile, users are not protected and we lose credibility. We need 13:52:07 to think about a broader campaign of the reputational risk by leaving out mobile in WCAG3 13:52:24 q+ 13:54:04 ack Tanya 13:55:24 move to next agendum 13:55:24 agendum 2 -- Discuss 'mobile' term -- taken up [from JJ] 13:55:53 ACTION: Find the WCAG 3 survey about which technologies should be included 13:55:56 Tanya one thing that is not clear to me, based on yesterday's discussion. There is no common agreement in the larger group whether it should include mobile or only web. Other participants want it broader than web only. It's very difficult to scope mobile and tell wether it's in or out. I think we should push back in the discussion next week Tuesday 13:55:56 on that point more, to create a broader discussion. If they want to remove mobile and be more agnostic, you nered to remove web as well. So it's a little ambiguous and I don't like it 13:58:59 q? 14:00:27 Thanks y'all! 14:00:54 rrsagent, make minutes 14:00:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/16-matf-minutes.html JJ 14:03:23 rrsagent, bye 14:03:23 I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/09/16-matf-actions.rdf : 14:03:23 ACTION: WCAG 3 lists 'non-web technologies' to be out of scope - what does this mean for mobile applications and other software; what happens if someone would still try to apply WCAG 3 to these types of technologies [1] 14:03:23 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/09/16-matf-irc#T13-42-57 14:03:23 ACTION: Find the WCAG 3 survey about which technologies should be included [2] 14:03:23 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/09/16-matf-irc#T13-55-53 14:03:30 zakim, bye 14:03:30 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been RobW, sam-estoesta, Tanya, quintinb 14:03:30 Zakim has left #matf