- From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:33:04 +0000
- To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
That would seem sensible. Thanks Steve On 06/02/2020 16:36, Alastair Campbell wrote: > 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 17:33:09 UTC