-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
2024‐08‐02
Attendance (8): Bruce, Giacomo, Francis , Ken
Avon Kuo, Bruce Bailey, Dan Bjorge, Giacomo Petri, Francis Storr, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Lori Oakley, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara
Regrets: Gundula
- Usual Agenda
- Reminder on ErratumRaised label -- namely batching up for CFC and republication (i.e., date)
- Ken updating ReadMe, Mike and Bruce updating wiki (including process) to match
- Ken working on changing Understanding (etc.) to use PR date rather than most recent build date.
- Still not getting as much feed back (4 thumbs up) as we would like -- We agree folks have enough time.
- OT, but W3C Public mailing list archives has a nice facelift!
Following standard agenda:
- Review ‘For discussion’ items
- Review ‘Drafted’ items (30 min), either:
- i. move back to In progress, with more work to do
- ii. move to Ready for approval, if there is general agreement the issue is sufficiently resolved
- iii. leave in Drafted, if discussion was not concluded satisfactorily
- Review issues closed and project items closed
- Review ‘To do’.
- Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open discussions.
Added "Duplicated text" as guidance to fulfil the 1.4.5 Images of Text success criterion in the Understanding Document #3773 Mike continuing to iterate with Patrick and other. Discussion between SC being met versus not applicable. Everyone on call comfortable with either approach, and canonical wording is "does not fail" so end result is the same. Mike also note that WCAG definition for text allows that alt attribute value is text.
Scott would rather not allow:
click me
Where the image is just raster text which could easily be CSS styled text. Folks on call agree it is terrible, but not prohibited by the literal wording of SC. Concurrence that visually unpleasant approach will discourage this poor-but-passing use case.
1777