-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 230
2024‐04‐05
Attending (9): Michael Gower, Alastair Campbell, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara, Avon Kuo, Francis Storr, Giacomo Petri, Dan Bjorge, Lori Oakley.
-
Issue #3539, realized that (checking section 5.1) appendixes are not normative, so it is an informative update. Dan noted that it was not marked as an appendix, so it isn't a clean solution.
-
Issue 3754, a couple of comments going beyond the initial scope of the issue, but probably worth including if we can, they seem 'light' changes. Scott will respond on a couple of things, they shouldn't block the progress.
Michael showed an potential extra paragraph on the topic of "Tracking from one line to the next". Will send to Scott for use.
Scott has many windows & monitors of Reflow open, been working on a bumper update (but not a whole new version). We have the in-brief, but thinking we need an 'important bits' at the top. Alastair hopes we can focus on the application-oriented aspects, and what happens when you have nested areas of scrolling contexts. It's been taking a long time, to include demos etc.
Lori would like to focus on a couple of sentences at the top. Many times a week we end up going over this at the top. All people really need to know is: Don't have two scrollbars unless you need them. Scott agrees, that's what he's aiming for.
Pat would like to see a section on what it means for low vision users, e.g. with zoom & magnifier, going into why it's important. Make it more real. Could be further down. Alastair has done presentation demos of this type of thing, makes the point well in 30 seconds.
Question from Scott: Assumes that someone can zoom and resize browser-windows. WCAG2ICT also seems to make a similar assumption, with caveats. Struggling with how that would work, as apps don't zoom in on various platforms. So many exceptions, I don't know how a user would do this. This works for the web because a browser can have independent zooming, and I don't see that acknowledged in here. Don't want to treat these things the same.
Alastair - Agree, could raise an issue on WCAG2ICT if it isn't acknowledging the assumption enough, don't want to include it in the web-oriented understanding doc.
- Issue 3518 Changing OL to UL where relevant. Need to check that it doesn't disrupt the build-process, particularly for the techniques. Otherwise ready for a reviewer.
- Issue 3693 Bug fix, looks good.
Avon brought up issue 3104 where people were looking at "Checked", could it create a loophole where it doesn't happen properly for the user?
Looking at the understanding document, what is / isn't normative? Answer: Just the SC text at the top. The rest is fine to update, so long as it doesn't contradict the normative text or add requirements.