Meeting minutes
Review WCAG 3
<JJ> https://
<JJ> https://
I have been trying to make it through the doc
but it's ONLY web
<JJ> https://
<JJ> w3c/
https://
Why are they trying to dictate terms like "Mobile" then?
<sam-estoesta> ^^
Weird they have https://
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
I wonder if React Native then falls under this, but not flutter, for example
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
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.
Sorry I hope I got that right
<sam-estoesta> you got my ramble spot on
🤗
<sam-estoesta> I am emotionally reacting with a series of fire emojis to JJ response to my ramble
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.
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
<JJ> I think they changed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to W3C Accessibility Guidelines earlier to try to make it apply beyond "Web Content".
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
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
I really like the assertions
I rotated my laptop and nothing happened 🤷
Someone needs to define default here
Because if I hold my phone in landscape all the time, you'd be surprised at what I expect to be default
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
real world" - this makes sense to me as you may be using maps etc in a certain orientation.
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
to think about a broader campaign of the reputational risk by leaving out mobile in WCAG3
Discuss 'mobile' term
ACTION: Find the WCAG 3 survey about which technologies should be included
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
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
Thanks y'all!