-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 272
2025‐02‐07
Attendance (11): Bruce Bailey, Francis Storr, Dan Bjorge, Duff Johnson, Filipo Zorzi, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Scott O'Hara, Alastair Campbell, Gundala Neuman, Steve Faulkner
Regrets: Giacomo Petri, Patrick Patrick Lauke
- Announcements: Eight WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by Feb 6) were Sent for WG Approval and included on the agenda for AGWG Meeting 4th February 2025.
- See minutes WCAG 2.2 issues review for more details.
- Discussion on process for errata.
- Conversation on Understanding Reflow.
- Following our standing agenda, working from the Project Board
- Errata column renamed as “Errata for annual refresh”
- On-going confusion that labels of "Normative" and "Informative" is applicable to TR documents and material which be included in errata.
[WCAG AAA] - Move H28 from sufficient to advisory in 3.1.4 Abbreviations SC #4195 discussed and change is okay, but H28 also needs updating to note its limitations. Mike agreed to take another editorial pass. Stays in For discussion.
Update user-inactivity.html #4122 is nominally editorial, but has still been controversial since it is change to TR document. Mike agreed to split into two PRs since correcting alphabetical order is an obvious fix. The class change is also editorial, but use of NOTES in spec is a sensitive topic. Stays in For discussion.
Update from target size min #2858 Deferred because of some concern that this is a Class 2 change. Moved to Future version updates.
Amend definition of motion animation to not exclude blurring #4040, as discussed previously, is a good edit. There was a digression on the AG call (2/7) that examples not being normative is irrelevant in this case. (The use of “for example” is not the same as having a list of examples.)
Harmonise spelling for "breakpoint" #4165 briefly discussed, since PR is Sent for WG approval and includes a TR document and was Sent for WG approval. No good reason not to go forward.
Updated Reflow understanding doc #4055 is really coming together, but we are in danger of bikeshedding.
Scott has included suggestions as they have come in. Only Giacomo has helped with illustrations, so Scott has created his own videos.
There is a technical problem that the videos are not playing. We have been working on this for a year now, lots of incorporated feedback. Touched on every reflow issue raised, so document is ready go.
General concurrence that we are ready to go in front of AG for wider review, but some concern that it not quite polished enough.
Clarified that only two new techniques have been added (300, 302). Lots of working examples, and supplemental guidance.
Videos are in the images subfolder, to help ensue they get pulled in with the build. There is not a pre-existing ‘media’ folder, so any files in there would no be automatically picked by the build process.
Gundala has offered to take another editorial review. Other feedback welcome as well.
Goal is to have file sent to AG by Friday the 14th.
2.4.6 Headings and Labels appears to prohibit the use of icons as labels #4095 could have been closed a while ago (as response only), but we liked the idea of adding clarification to Understanding.
2.4.6-headings-and-labels-descriptive-icons #4147 will close 4095. We made minor editorial changes during call. PR moved to Ready for approval.
Need for Change for case where all fields are mandatory #2282 stems from some confusion because the word ‘required’ is easily conflated with SC being required. On call we discussed several examples where all fields are required (e.g., a log in). Ken pointed out that the test process contradicts one of the instructions. Mike over to take another editorial pass. Maybe should be constrained to forms with a mix of required and optional fields?