-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
2024‐06‐14
Attendance (11): Mike Gower, Bruce Bailey, Alastair Campbell, Francis Storr, Filippo Zorzi, Scott O'Hara, Giacomo Petri, Dan Bjorge, Patrick Lauke, Gundula Neuman, Lori Oakley
Per agenda email, we are postponing an email to AG Working Group by a week. This is because we only have a couple items and because there was conflation between two pairs of PRs (two for 1.4.1, two for F94).
Per usual, we worked from project board with the goal of queuing a few more items as Ready for AG Approval.
Mike noted we have nine items in Errata for CFC column, so that is already enough to warrant publishing (and changing cover page date for TR track. Alastair prefers to collect a few more before sending for CFC, plus republishing 2.2 should wait on WCAG2ICT update to be finalized.
Patrick walked group through Remove "1280 pixels wide" test step from F94 #3739; since context is Resize Text and not Reflow, this Understanding can be simplified. This PR incorporated other material already merged. Ready for Approval.
Patrick also walked group through Tweak understanding for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 #1790 clarifies that if no gaps in dialog, AD will be limited. While this implies alternatives should be provided, edit clarifies that lack of gaps in dialogue is not sufficient for AAA requirement. We might want to write a new technique for ducking non-dialog audio (to allow for good AD) but that is not a reason to hold up this PR. Review of long related issue How to add audio descriptions to videos? #1768 is requested of TF members, but regardless the PR is Ready for Approval.
Giacomo Added "Duplicated text" as guidance to fulfil the 1.4.5 Images of Text success criterion in the Understanding Document #3773; which is updated from recent feedback and on call. Patrick recommends borrowing more literally from the SC phrasing for the scenarios described. Mike askes to have guidance to have less overlap with from 1.1.1. Patrick noted that "technologies" is not specific and could understood to apply to, for example, limitations of the CMS (even when native CSS/HTML does not have the limitation). Giacomo is trying provide guidance so that authors (who arguably fail 1.4.5 on its face) still have guidance promoting having the information in text (and maybe CAV is applicable), do not have an incentive to skip providing machine-readable text. alternative text 1.1.1 to avoid failing both SC. Folks on call all agree that ALT value is not a way to meet 1.1.1. Folks on call also agree that with actual text nearby, the same information is on the same page (and per the WCAG page-oriented conformance model) that is sufficient. When actual text is available and visible on the page, that should not fail 1.4.5. Moved to ready Ready for Approval. Alastair gave the example a pull quote being graphical text. The text is there, so no reason to fail 1.4.5, and no need to ask "if the technologies being used can achieve the visual presentation".
Mike referenced 2.0 Understanding, notes that conflation with SC 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics is a long standing issue. Mike will rework with a new PR, working to harmonize the two PRs and the changes clean and clear for AG review.
Mike argued (separately, in email) that shades of gray are not use of color as they have no color. On call, no one endorsed that perspective.
Patrick shared a CodePen Use of Color and State to help facilitate the discussion.
In the interim, Changes to 1.4.1 Use of Color understanding #1788 which overlaps with 1.4.1 Use of color: adding examples to understanding text #3717 are both Drafted.