Skip to content

2024‐12‐13

Bruce Bailey edited this page Dec 13, 2024 · 3 revisions

DRAFT Minutes for meeting December 13th, 2024

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

Agenda

Reflow

[Updated Reflow understanding doc #4055](../pull/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 read for our first meeting of the new year, 3 January 2025.

For discussion

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 as an item for Errata, but should be treated individually.

Amend definition of motion animation to not exclude blurring #4040 seems to have been overlooked from consideration for republishing.

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 w3c/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.

Drafted

Does the SC 1.4.3 Contrast minimum exception apply to text outside a disabled control? #3725 discussion about what counts as for the exception. It is problematic since "Legend" is technically part of the UIC, but it is poor useability.

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 auditor failing greyed out disabled controls because of the poor useability.

Patrick points out that disabled != readonly. This goes into a potential hairsplitting of "what is disabled vs what is readonly" and that should be the clarification.

Dan: I disagree and think readonly vs disabled is irrelevant and a distraction. If you ignore the possibility of a separate readonly state the interesting part of this discussion is identical.

Alastair: The SC says “inactive” which I assume includes both readonly & disabled.

Patrick: 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?

Alastair: I can give a bit of background on the exception next time, what I heard from 2.0, and when it resurfaced in 2.1

Francis: Off topic for 2.x: If anyone’s interested, Rachael recently published a long blog post about the recent WCAG 3 update: https://whollyaccessible.org/2024/12/11/wcag-3-december-24-update/

user interface component: a part of the content that is perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function

https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/components/buttons/#button-plugin and to me, 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

Clone this wiki locally