WCAG 2.2 status update

Hi everyone,

Quick update after the meeting:

  *   Information in steps: Agreed to proceed with the SC pending a technique:

Rachael has added two: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18MCz5XDsMmglcAe2j-HzQbpADpw_HtdVjDZ3EHX4-xk/edit#heading=h.lqrn1zsmik3x

Next step: Create PR to integrate, then CFC.
  *   Fixed Reference Points: Reviewed again:

Next step: Still open, DavidM to create an AAA variation.
  *   Dragging: Reviewed and generally getting there:

Still open as there is a question about whether it is a super-set of ‘gestures’, or the ‘opposite’ to gestures (as defined in 2.5.1).
  *   Confirmation before submission: Reviewed again:

Still open, we only had a few minutes, but made changes, and it feels like there’s a bit more to do.

Other SCs recently updated:

  *   Hidden controls: Updated the SC on the call yesterday:
and the understanding is updated include a technique (for review):
Next step: 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.
Up for review in the next two weeks:

  *   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:
  *   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.
  *   Find help: Reviewed Dec 10th: https://www.w3.org/2019/12/10-ag-minutes.html#item04<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2019%2F12%2F10-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7Cfddd97c3f50643c3440d08d79072d9ce%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637136695276372678&sdata=CCxhDdvtA%2F6wjVRFD8Ij%2Bn%2Bk0F9dKKhD9QCJ8Nl4dEo%3D&reserved=0>
Has since been updated, please re-evaluate:

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, 19 February 2020 00:23:50 UTC