Re: WCAG 2.2 status update

Hi Steve,

Thanks for that, I've re-jigged the order to match the email now:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas 

If it is ready next week, shall we say the 18th?  I can move it up a week.

-Alastair


On 06/02/2020, 16:15, "Steve Lee" <stevelee@w3.org> wrote:

    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 16:36:19 UTC