W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2020

Re: WCAG 2.2 status update

From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:14:59 +0000
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Message-ID: <8eb021ad-e046-a8bf-ced9-0b70839f924a@w3.org>
Thank you very much Alastair

 >   * *Confirmation before submission:* Reviewed Dec 10^th :
 >     https://www.w3.org/2019/12/10-ag-minutes.html#item03
 >     I think it needs some updates before another review (SteveL).
 >     Previous results:
 > 
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-confirm-before-submission/results

I discussed the status of this with Rachael and John in today's call and 
we agreed I will work through the in-document and survey comments 
tomorrow. John will then review ready for the 2nd review.

We thought from the AG agendas that the next AG review will be next week 
and a new survey would go before. Is that workable if I update tomorrow? 
Or should we delay to allow time for survey review?

Thanks

Steve

On 06/02/2020 15:52, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> A quick general update on the status of the various WCAG 2.2 SCs, I’ve 
> tried to order on how much work appears to be left to do.
> 
> For anyone shepherding an SC, please do look at the agendas 
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas> page and let me know 
> if you won’t be around when your one(s) are up. Also, if I have missed 
> some conversation / updates and it has moved on more than I know, please 
> reply to me.
> 
> *SCs for review / approval:*
> 
>   * *Hidden controls:* Updated after the review on 21^st Jan:
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/21-ag-minutes.html#item02
>     Need to assess if the changes work for everyone:
>     https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/essential-controls/
>   * *Touch target spacing: *Updated by Kathy & Mobile task force to
>     enforce a minimum size+spacing. Reviewed on 21^st Jan:
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/21-ag-minutes.html#item03
>     There were no objections to the SC text and approach, so need a
>     firmer understanding doc & technique.
>   * *Information in steps:* Agreed to proceed with the SC text on the 28th:
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/28-ag-minutes.html#item02
>     Need a technique, then we can create PR to integrate.
>   * *Fixed Reference Points: *Reviewed Jan 28^th :
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/28-ag-minutes.html#item04
>     It seemed that making it more specific to page numbers from a paper
>     publication would be more appropriate, if that is updated quickly it
>     could be re-reviewed.
>   * *Dragging:* Was reviewed Jan 7^th , and since then some examples
>     have been found & put forward, so it does appear to be feasible.
>     There are still comments from the review that need updating in the doc.
>     https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging/
>   * *Find help*: Reviewed Feb 4th:
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/02/04-ag-minutes.html#item08
>     Difficult because we cannot target by size or type of site, so
>     “actively supported” is a tricky concept. Need someone to help or
>     come up with a way around that.
>   * *Confirmation before submission:* Reviewed Dec 10^th :
>     https://www.w3.org/2019/12/10-ag-minutes.html#item03
>     I think it needs some updates before another review (SteveL).
>     Previous results:
>     https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-confirm-before-submission/results
> 
> 
> *SCs that (probably) need more work than fits into the timescale:*
> 
>   * *Visual indicators*: Last reviewed Jan 7^th :
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/07-ag-minutes.html#item05
>     In the reviewed form, it requires a lot of (documented) practical
>     research into how different components would pass/fail.
>     There has been a side conversation, but it still needs quite a lot
>     of research/work.
>     https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/
>   * *Custom interactions*, reviewed Dec 17^th :
>     https://www.w3.org/2019/12/17-ag-minutes.html#item04
>     Some big questions left open about whether the interaction is the
>     problem, or the expectation of the interaction.
>     Would really like people to collect examples of a non-standard
>     interactions (anyone, not just Jake!). This doesn’t appear to have
>     happened yet.
> 
> *SCs that hit problems, not scheduling for re-review:*
> 
>   * *Icon Description*: Was reviewed on the 7^th Jan:
>     https://www.w3.org/2020/01/07-ag-minutes.html#item06
>     There does not seem to be a good way of achieving this on
>     touch-screen devices, in a way that doesn’t make the interaction
>     worse in some circumstances.
>   * *Visible labels* & *Orientation:* were thought to be possible to
>     cover with understanding/technique updates.
> 
> *SCs approved:*
> 
>   * *Accessible authentication:* Approved on a call, need a review of
>     the PR and CFC:
>     https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1037
>   * *Focus visible (enhanced):* CFC approved, will be included in the
>     working draft soon. Post-approval comments in github.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -Alastair
> 
> -- 
> 
> www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2020 16:15:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:05 UTC