Meeting minutes
<alastairc> WCAG 2.2 review of updates https://
Introductions and Annoucements
ac: welcome
ac: Any new members or change of affiliation ?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say an announcement
WCAG 3 publication discussion https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/
Chuck: Today is International day of Persons with Disabilities day. Will be honoring it. You might consider it too.
Ac: WCAG 3 publication discussion all +1s
Content Related Definitions (text, image, content, interactive component, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/140
Ac: hope to publish soon.
Ac: we introduced this last week. Will share screen.
… I put in some suggestions.
… had a few comments.
… user interface controls seemed to be a sub-set.
… General agreement with the definitions, one proposed tweak to "text".
… term "content" is wide.
… wondering if we could use "user interface" and "user interface controls" as a subset.
… will leave this open. It is a current proposal. Think about it in our sub-groups.
Mg: thinking through a phone tree. In a speech interaction.
… wondering if "user interface controls" works with that.
Ac: think it works but we should test it.
Wendy: think it does include that.
<mbgower> Yep, "user interface" seems to work fine. I was more wondering about "user interface control"
Wendy: controls are prompted but it is broad enough to work.
Glenda: I agree with Wendy.
SF: why content and interactive content?
Lo: don't think we should list all types of content. Keeping things more general should help us.
Glenda: where would links fall under this?
<mbgower> an input is a subset of "control"
Ac: a control is more general.
Ac: don't need to define everything in advance.
GN: user interface definition may allow for action or action from the user.
<Jon_avila> I agree - to add action to make it clear buttons would be covered under user interface.
Ac: discussion is still open.
… have a look through this.
WCAG 2.2 review of updates https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024Nov/0012.html
Ac: email is from mike.
<mbgower> https://
Ac: Update from target size min<https://
… Task Force has identified a normative change for the Working Group. Do we want to have an errata for this?
… would be applied to future publication.
Mg: also marked as normative.
… will have to go to CFC.
<alastairc> Poll: Should we update Target Size Enhanced (AAA) to align the inline-exception with Target Size Min (AA)?
<DF> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<mbgower> +1 at the moment, the requirement is looser for AAA, which doesn't make a lot of sense
<scott> +1
<wendyreid> +1
<Jon_avila> 0
<Azlan> +1
<Makoto> +1
<ljoakley2> +1
<MJ> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Frankie> +1
<giacomo-petri> +1
Laura: 0
<Chuck> +1
<stevef> +1
<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Approve PR 2858 to create an errata for Target Size Enhanced.
<Chuck> +1
<mbgower> +1
<mike_beganyi> +1
<Graham> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<DF> +1
<scott> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Frankie> +1
<Azlan> +1
<ljoakley2> +1
<kirkwood> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve PR 2858 to create an errata for Target Size Enhanced.
Ac: nothing else in the email was normative.
Mg: a few where it seems it was intended as a note. It is a gray area.
… alpha order is straight forward.
<alastairc> w3c/
Mg: you have another week to review these.
Mg: link directly to new supplemental guidance is clearly not normative.
<alastairc> w3c/
Mg: Update F2.html some slight changes reducing the scope.
… 2339 update. Slight rewording
… 4102 some slight updates.
… and an add.
<alastairc> this one could do with some more review / thumbs up w3c/
Mg: need more review on 2150.
<alastairc> https://
Mg: any questions?
<mbgower> https://
Sub-group working
LO: Friday TF has a good description of our process on our wiki. Join us on Fridays.
<mbgower> This page is probably the most important for the processes we follow https://