Meeting minutes
Review voting on SCs that required little or no modification from WCAG2ICT
<Joe_Humbert> regrets Mick Keane
<quintinb> Please accept my deepest apologies, I will not be able to attend. I just found out myself
<quintinb> regrets quintinb
<julianmka> Joe: Summarizes voting activity on proposed language for 2.3.1 Three flashes or below threshold. 5 votes yes, 1 vote no.
<julianmka> Joe: Summarizes Mick's comment about the technical nature of the threshold and difficulty in applying it.
<julianmka> Julian: Mick's concerns seem more at odds with the original SC than anything we have under our control.
<julianmka> Joe: We may be able to create a new definition that may make things easier.
<julianmka> Illai: Alain brought up watches, what about other devices?
<julianmka> Joe: Apple watch example - not only a different device but also a different OS.
<julianmka> Alain: Not sure if smartwatches are in scope of MATF.
<julianmka> Alain: Could we clarify what's in scope for mobile applications in terms of other hardware?
<julianmka> Jamers: WCAG2ICT is about non-web space, we're here for mobile/smartphone devices. Readers of our docs would benefit from clarifying scope and there are probably questions out there about smartwatches etc.
<julianmka> Jamers: Need to clarify scope within this team.
<Illai> +1 to Jame
<Karla> + 1
<Alainvagner> +1
<julianmka> Joe: May need to define other terms and platforms.
<julianmka> +1 Jamie
<julianmka> Joe: We can limit scope of our first draft so this doesn't drag on forever.
<julianmka> Aashutosh: Concerning this SC, people use their mobile devices in the dark and in environments where flashes/light can have a greater impact.
<Jamers> 1+
<julianmka> Accept 2.3.1 as proposed in Github?
<Carolina> 1+
<Jamers> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Illai> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<Alainvagner> +1
<Karla> +1
ACTION: Flag Github issue as ready (for now)
<julianmka> Joe: Next SC to review -2.2.2 Pause, stop, hide
<julianmka> Joe: Github issue for 2.2.2 has 6 votes to accept.
<julianmka> Accept 2.2.2 as proposed in Github?
<Illai> +1
<Jamers> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Alainvagner> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<Karla> +1
<Carolina> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
ACTION: Flag 2.2.2 issue as ready to go
<julianmka> Joe: Next SC: 1.4.5 Images of text. Only comment about Julian's question re: Closed Functionality.
<Alainvagner> +1 to julianmka
<Illai> +1
<Karla> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
<julianmka> julianmka: Proposes we leave out Closed Functionality note and add in after TF discussion.
<Jamers> +1 to Julian
<Carolina> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.4.5 issue as ready to go in Github
ACTION: Discuss Closed Functionality in future meeting
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.4.2 Audio Control. No comments in GH issue.
<julianmka> Accept 1.4.2 as proposed in Github?
<Jamers> +1
<Alainvagner> +1
<Illai> +1
<Karla> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<Carolina> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.4.2 as ready to go in GH
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.2.5 Audio Description (prerecorded). No discussion in Github.
<julianmka> Accept 1.2.5 as proposed in Github?
<Alainvagner> +1
<Illai> +1
<Carolina> +1
<Karla> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Jamers> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.4.2 as ready in Github
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.2.4 Captions (live). Fewer votes in github, but no discussion.
<Jamers> +1
<julianmka> Accept 1.2.4 as proposed in Github?
<Alainvagner> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
<Carolina> +1
<Karla> +1
<Illai> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.2.4 as ready in Github
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.2.2 Captions (prerecorded). No discussion in Github issue.
<Alainvagner> +1
<julianmka> Accept 1.2.2 as proposed in Github?
<Carolina> +1
<Illai> +1
<Karla> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<Jamers> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.2.2 as ready in Github.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.2.3 Audio description or media alternative (prerecorded). Includes note about Closed Functionality which will not be included in first draft. No comments in Github issue.
<julianmka> Accept 1.2.3 as proposed?
<Alainvagner> +1
<Karla> +1
<Illai> +1
<Carolina> +1
<julianmka> +1
<Jamers> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
<Aashutosh> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.2.3 as ready in Github.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Next SC: 1.2.1 Audio-only and video-only (prerecorded). Includes note about Closed functionality which willl not be included in first draft. Not comments in Github issue.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Accept 1.2.1 as proposed?
<Alainvagner> +1
<Carolina> +1
<Illai> +1
<julianmka> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
<Karla> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<Jamers> +1
ACTION: Flag 1.2.1 as ready in Github
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Last SC: 2.2.1 Timing adjustable
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Recent comment from JJ conversation with Alastair from large AGWG. Core question -- is respecting system features like reduce animations sufficient to meet this SC?
<Jamers> -1
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Or rather, would a system setting to extend the time components like toasts appear on the screen be sufficient?
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Alastair seemed to agree that the Android toast setting could be enough.
<Jamers> never mind, ignore my -1
<julianmka> julianmka: Comment from JJ and Alastair is interesting but not enough to hold up moving forward with this SC for the first draft.
<julianmka> Alainvagner: Question about system-wide settings conversation applies across several SCs, is a larger conversation.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: There are several ways to satisfy this SC.
<julianmka> Jamers: Note in the proposed language clarifies intent that the goal of this SC is not to interrupt users' task completion due to time limits. Drafted language and mechanisms provide enough guidance/flexibility for app creators to meet this SC.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Accept 2.2.1 as proposed?
<Alainvagner> +1
<Karla> +1
<Carolina> +1
<Illai> +1
<julianmka> +1
<GleidsonRamos> +1
ACTION: Flag 2.2.1 as ready in Github.
<julianmka> julianmka: Do we need another issue to discuss whether system-level accessibility settings satisfy SCs?
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Supporting accessibility settings and whether settings are sufficient techniques are separate conversations.
<Alainvagner> +1 to Joe_Humbert
<Karla> +1 to Joe
<Jamers> +1 to @detlev
<julianmka> Alainvagner: I'm uncomfortable with assuming that system settings will do the job. We know from user testing that people don't know about system settings.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: So you want more conversation about whether system settings are a separate discussion?
<julianmka> Alainvagner: Yes, separate discussion
<Alainvagner> julianmka it was @detlev in your last message
<julianmka> julianmka: Agrees with Detlev
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Sounds like we need more conversation on sufficient techniques.
ACTION: Create new Github issue to discuss system settings as sufficient techniques.
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures
<Joe_Humbert> w3c/
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Summarizes current Github comment activity where Alainvagner expressed desire to keep it as close to WCAG2ICT as possible.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: What is considered a path-based gesture on mobile? That isn't defined in the original SC nor in WCAG2ICT.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Note excludes "actions that are required to operate the user agent". Is the user agent the mobile device/OS?
<julianmka> Detlev: Swiping to scroll would be an OS-gesture. If people implement a path-based gesture like to move a slider, to what extent is it acceptable to have alternative conforming options? E.g. slider and additional view that allows selection of possible options from the slider.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: That would be conformant so long as it isn't a path-based gesture.
<julianmka> Detlev: Basic swiping would not be a path-based gesture.
<Joe_Humbert> https://
<julianmka> Jamers: Path-based gesture is defined in the 2.5.1 Understanding document. Examples include swiping through carousels where the direction matters. I suggest we diverge from WCAG2ICT on this and link to the Understanding document with its definition.
<Illai> +1 Jame
<julianmka> Jamers: We could add a note or link to the Understanding document since it's better defined there.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: I think wCAG2ICT didn't link to it because 2.2 doesn't link to the Understanding doc. Maybe this is a good question to ask the other working group - why they didn't define it in 2.2. but did in the Understanding doc.
<julianmka> Jamers: I'm suggesting that there's more guidance in WCAG documentation than WCAG2ICT that we can point people to. I know the Understanding doc only expands on normative text but in this case it's helpful.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Not sure if it's better to define terms in our documentation or add a note to this SC.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: One issue is that the Understanding doc mentions swipes. What is a swipe, and are some OS gestures swipes which are exempt?
<julianmka> GleidsonRamos: I don't think swipe is a path-based gesture, I think the intent is more about drag & drop functionality. I don't agree with the exception for user agent.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: We can't change the original SC langauge but we coudl add a note to explain further.
<julianmka> Joe_Humbert: Will keep this topic in next meeting agenda