-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 303
2025‐04‐04
Attendance (13): Alastair Campbell, Bruce Bailey, Dan Bjorge, Daniel Montalvo, Duff Johnson, Filippo Zorzi, Francis Storr, Giacomo Petri, Ken Franqueiro, Lori Oakley, Gundula Niemann, Mike Gower, Scott O'Hara
Regrets: Steve Faulkner, Patrick Lauke
- Per email, usual standing agenda.
- Mike sent ten items to AG Tuesday for review (feedback due 15 April). We are in week one of our two week review cycle.
- Thanks to Steve Faulkner for highlighting our work on LinkedIn post.
- Updated Understanding Reflow is now live!
W3C policy is that if there is errata, should be updated at least quarterly. We are still having some back-and-forth discussion. With regard to older issue about back-porting 2.1 errata, there was some expectation that would be available by now. Formally, publishing is to be within three months of the change actually being incorporated. But we have not started that clock because we do not have consensus, and we have not merged the PRs because of the that. Relatedly, see item 4117, last item below.
Replace f4 and f47 #4166 warrants more review. Francis affirms he reviewed, but we would like at least one more close look since F47 is a total rewrite. Left in For Discussion.
Tweak understanding for 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 #1790 discussed. Mike is working on adding a decision tree. Needs additional consideration. We will revisit more closely on a future call. Left in For Discussion.
How to add audio descriptions to videos? #1768 now referenced to placeholder for Creating a new sufficient technique using audio ducking to create audio descriptions #3806. Original issue is a Response-only and returns to Drafted.
Restyle figures and captions #4276 still waiting some further input, and needs to be checked for compatibility with other uses of figcaption on the WAI site. Remains in Drafted.
Tweak G13, on-input understanding, F37 #4291 flagged for revisiting in a future call.
Is it possible to turn on a platform's 'increase contrast' mode when testing WCAG SC 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)? #4290 discussed at length. Last week we tried to distinguish from Windows Hight Contrast Mode. Mike has made those edits and Alastair updated response. On call we tweaked response to be a little more technically accurate. Compatibility with AT is more in regs like 508 than Accessibility Supported. It is possible to interfere with High Contrast mode. Dark Mode compatibility is another tricky issue we should be careful with. We agree we should have light touch with this for the WCAG context. Authors need to do extra work to support OS dark mode (compatibly with system contrast preferences). "Dark mode" varies by platform and browser support. Conforming Alternative Version permits theme switchers, with some options not having strong contrast. General consensus that with Contrast Minimum, for the web, SC must be met without depending upon enhancements from specific OS setting. Non-web content might have a different requirement. We agree to defer CAV and author provided theme switching from the reply. With platform-provided Dark Mode now being a common feature, we should provide some guidance about supporting that, and when/if lack of support is a WCAG failure or just a best practice. Most would also expect that default presentation have good contrast, but a theme switcher or explicit OS compatibility mode could be acceptable. Response edited for clarity and issue advanced to Ready for Approval.
Update resource links in images of text #4311 drafted by Francis. Quite straightforward. Giacomo volunteered to review it last week, and is now be ready to go. Moved to Ready for Approval.
[Definition of 'user inactivity' seems to include a Note that isn't marked up as a note #4117](4117 is sentence flagged by WCAG2ICT work which was clearly intended as a clarifying note, and never should have been part of the glossy definition (except as a note). Deque has concern that sentence is part of normative requirement, so an audit pass/fail might turn on a different understanding from developer (author, platform owner) versus naive auditor. Bruce looked for, but could not find evidence of this being a CSS artifact. Update user-inactivity.html #4122 is Sent for WG approval.
W3C Process Document defines classes of changes. "The first two classes of change are considered editorial changes" excerpts follow (emphasis added to 1 and 2):
- No changes to text content – These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets, or invalid markup.
- Changes that do not functionally affect interpretation of the document ... Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative examples which clearly conflict with normative requirements, clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical errors where the change does not change requirements... If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change functionally affects interpretation, that change does not fall into this class.
- Other changes that do not add new features — ...these changes may affect conformance to the specification. A change that affects conformance is one that ... clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly either conforming or non-conforming.