Minutes - Friday 10th Nov 2023

Hi everyone,

This is our notes/minutes from the Friday meeting today.

Although everything is in github, we’ll keep a track of what was discussed/agreed and actions on a per-week basis as well.

Reviewing new issues



#3543<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3543>

Paul asking about whether something would meet status messages.

E.g. an error message appearing on blur, behind your focus.

Has several examples, varying experiences. Does the alert have to be available simultaneously.



Group discussion: Michael posted a response in the issue to say that they would both pass, with reasoning.



Pat: agrees with reasoning.

AC: I think it meets the SC wording. It is a status message, but I think it's the last bit of the SC text that enables these to pass without an alert.



Action: Michael to update the response and add an example to the understanding doc that covers this scenario.





#3542<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3542>



James asks whether input purpose is requiring up to date info?



Pat: There's no versioning in autocomplete.



If a form is asking for an old address, would it fail to not include the autocomplete for address.



AC: I don't think past addresses are covered by input purposes.



Going past current info, the SC isn't concerned with how it works.



Suggested resolution: The SC itself doesn't define this, but the purposes (as defined in section 7) are intended to be for current valid info, not old info. However, if people add an input purpose to fields for old information, that is not a fail (as the SC doesn't require NOT using it).



Need to add clarification to the understanding doc.



Dan: If we go with that, is there anything that would forbid people from using it?

AC: I wouldn't, although hard to be explicit and logical about that.



Action: Pat to update.



#3537<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3537>



Transaction currency and amount seem odd, as they are not about the user.



Group thoughts: Currency seems ok, if the description is tweaked. Amount seems odd, as it's about the transaction not the user.



There is a PR from Pat.



Would be a proposed errata.



Action: Update the PR, add label for erratum raised.



Follow-ups



PR 3341<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3341/files>



Small update to the focus-not-obscured PR that was approved previously.

Agreed with the update, send around for transparency.





SCR37 replacement (email)



AC: Isn't dynamic updates to focus order included?



  *   Focus order doesn't require tab sequence, could be moved by selecting a button.
  *   Does apply to dynamic things.
  *   Sufficient technique, not the only way of doing it.
  *   Should say "on or inside it" (to align with HTML spec).



Group: generally agree, and do fail things when not done.



Action: AC to respond on email.