W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2020

RE: WCAG 2.2 status update

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:20:08 +0000
To: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
CC: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM7PR09MB4167D6D98E19E7BCF3645F84B91B0@AM7PR09MB4167.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi everyone,

A quick update from this week:

SCs recently updated:

  *   Hidden controls: Updated the SC on the call yesterday:

and the understanding is updated:

Need to flesh out a technique and then hopefully a quick approval soon.
  *   Touch target spacing: Discussed yesterday and we agreed it would be best to focus the SC text on 44px, rather than having a minimum area+spacing with a different value:

David has tried re-wording:

It might still need some work on the SC text, and does need a firmer understanding doc & technique.
  *   Visual indicators: There has been a side conversation about scoping it to similar controls as Hidden controls, i.e. controls that progress a process. Given the re-scoping, it seems suitable to bring back to the group:


Up for review in the next two weeks:

  *   Information in steps: Agreed to proceed with the SC text on the 28th:

Need a technique, then we can create PR to integrate.
  *   Fixed Reference Points: Reviewed Jan 28th: 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 7th, 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.

  *   Confirmation before submission: Reviewed Dec 10th: https://www.w3.org/2019/12/10-ag-minutes.html#item03

I think it needs some updates before another review (SteveL). Previous results:

  *   Custom interactions, reviewed Dec 17th: 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!). some have been collected, but only one ‘failing’ example at the moment.

SCs that hit problems, not scheduling for re-review:

  *   Icon Description: Was reviewed on the 7th Jan:

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:

  *   Focus visible (enhanced): CFC approved, will be included in the working draft soon. Post-approval comments in github.
Kind regards,

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 11:20:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:34 UTC