-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
2024‐12‐13
Attendance (10): Alastair Campbell, Bruce Bailey, Dan Bjorge, Duff Johnson, Fillipo Zorzi, Francis Storr, Giacomo Petri, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara
Regrets: Duff Johnson, Steve Faulkner
-
WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2 published with minor editorial updates yesterday.
- Errata mechanics remain a work in progress. See Add errata to w3c/wcag repo and cross-reference from informative docs #4170.
- We are meeting next week, 12/20, but attendance will be light. Regrets from Alastair and Mike. No meeting 12/27. We will be meeting 1/3. If attendance is good, we will return to Reflow discussion.
- Check-in on Updated Understanding Reflow and then Stock agenda for today.
- Review items Sent for AG approval that have been moved to For discussion column, consistent with our standing agenda, working from the Project Board
Updated Reflow understanding doc #4055 looked at the rendered preview version. Because so much has changed, the GitHub diff is not useful. The W3C HTML Diff is a little better.
Please everyone, assignment for our first meeting of the new year is to read the Understanding Reflow draft.
Update from target size min #2858 was not approved in the recent CFC and was not included in 12/12 republishing. This is still worth discussing and for consideration as errata. Going forward, errata items should be treated individually and not batched as part of a republication.
Amend definition of motion animation to not exclude blurring #4040 seems to have been overlooked from consideration for republishing. This was fully approved, but it is a normative change and might have gotten an objection. The last publication was everything in the errata column, apologies that one somehow dropped out of the column (or didn't get into it).
Ken's PR for adding errata to the wcag repo will also add cross-referencing errata to SC boxes and term definitions within informative docs on w3.org, for any errata since the latest published version, to hopefully make this sort of thing more visible.
Does the SC 1.4.3 Contrast minimum exception apply to text outside a disabled control? #3725 led to discussion about what counts as for the exception. It is problematic since "Legend" is technically part of the UIC, but results in poor useability.
Giacomo shared a couple CodePen examples to facilitate the conversation:
Patrick: I'm still of opinion that even label can have low contrast, if we have the (dubious, in hindsight) exemption that disabled UIC in general are allowed to have low contrast. The discussion/argument was basically around "does the label count as being part of the UIC or separate"?
Scott and Bruce have experience with auditors failing greyed out disabled controls because of the poor useability. Real-world does not care about literal wording of exception.
Patrick points out that disabled is not the same as readonly. This goes into a potential hairsplitting of "what is disabled vs what is readonly" and that should be the clarification.
Dan disagreed and think readonly vs disabled is irrelevant and a distraction. If one ignores the possibility of a separate readonly state the interesting part of this discussion is identical.
Alastair pointed out that the SC uses "inactive" which one can assume includes both readonly and disabled.
user interface component: a part of the content that is perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function
Patrick asked: Imagine custom radio buttons that are styled not as two separate "circle + label", but a big button. Would that allow low contrast when the whole button-like thing is disabled?
Patrick: See Button plugin. The author intent distinction between readonly and disabled is important, regardless of technical limitation of "in html you can't make radio button readonly".
Alastair: But aren’t both ‘inactive’?
Patrick: Unfortunate original use of "inactive" I'd argue. I'm sure the intention originally wasn't to cover readonly controls.
Alastair offers to give a bit of background on the exception next time, what he heard from 2.0, and when it resurfaced in 2.1.
Off topic for 2.x, but probably of interest. Rachael recently published a long blog post about the recent WCAG 3 update