-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
2024‐12‐06
Attendance (9): Bruce Bailey, Francis Storr, Dan Bjorge, Duff Johnson, Fillipo Zorzi, Giacomo Petri, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Scott O'Hara
Regrets: Alastair Campbell, Patrick Lauke, Steve Faulkner
- Briefing from Duff on PDF Association Techniques and Failures
- Update on items sent for AG approval
- Following our standing agenda, working from the Project Board
PDF 2.0 and Well-Tagged PDF (WTPDF) are now defined, and both will help improve PDF accessibility going forward. Duff Johnson gave a status update on PDF Association Techniques for Accessible PDF. The TF is interested in surfacing that good work. The discussion today was on file naming and numbering. The TF favored starting with PDFA... because just using "F" (for Fundamental) or "P" would be conflated with "Failure" or "Pass".
Question to Ken if we list on the Techniques -- but that index is generated programmatically. TF is looking for something more visible than a link from current Understanding pages.
We also floated just "PDF24" as first PDFA technique (since there 23 now and TF is happy to defer to PDFA on future techniques. That would be confusing for the PDFA folks (Where are the other 23?). Additionally, PDFA has failures for PDF, and the numbering scheme might reflect that. (We have Common Failures, but they are HTML-centric.
TF did not settle on something ideal. TF agrees that the labeling scheme should aim to not be easily confused with 2.x Techniques, and appreciates the issue being raised early.
2.1 Understanding pages are now updated to use the same robust formatting as we have with for 2.2.
In PRs, the Deploy Preview links (the ones with netlify.app in the URL) are now working. Follow the index to the rendered page(s) associated with the PR.
Another helpful tool is the W3C Create Diff between HTML pages. This could be especially useful when the GitHub DIFF feature overstates changes (which can happen from whitespace differences), or if the PR conversation thread has become overly long.
We are giving AG another week for the ten WCAG 2 proposed changes (due by Dec 3) sent November 20th. These were were discussed on AG call 12/03,
- Update F2.html #4128
- Update from target size min #2858
- Update user-inactivity.html #4122
- link directly to new supplemental guidance #2296
- Tweak the concept of "draw" in 2.5.8 understanding for the spacing checks #4057
- Update F103 to remove progressbar as it's not an implicit live region #1021
- Aria22 modification for aria-atomic #1699
- update Target Size Minimum to add scrollbar example #3966
- Update 3.3.2 understanding doc and g167 technique #4102
- Update H95.html #2150
Warning for Dialogues, not just new windows. #4158 is a response only. Reviewed and queued up for Ready for [AG] approval.
Please clarify the actual goal of SC 1.4.4 in the understanding documents #4157 is Response only. Reviewed and moved to Ready for approval.
Intent of Consolidation on the usage of website. #3662 is fine, but there are now to many build conflict errors. Mike volunteered to make a new PR replicating his normative style changes to the non-normative documents. Left in Drafted.
Update G195 - removal of last line of test (low contrast OK if focus ring > 2px thick) #3686 discussed last week as well. Looks good, for 2.2, but facilitators to discuss on a coordination call to discuss applicability to 2.1. Left in Drafted.
Does the SC 1.4.3 Contrast minimum exception apply to text outside a disabled control? #3725 discussed. There is design tension between unavailable controls being "grayed out" (i.e., low contrast) but being important. Agreement that text labels outside controls must not be low contrast. Given that the normative text is ambiguous, how far could we go with wanted labels (in checkboxes, and the like) insisting that they have good contrast. Floating labels are another confounding example, are they inside or outside? Mike shared a reference which distinguishes between "read only" and "disabled". Giacomo offered to do some code pen examples. Left in Drafted.
update to focus placement for modal dialogs #3214, see preview diff for Technique F85: Failure of Success Criterion 2.4.3 due to using dialogs or menus that are not adjacent to their trigger control in the sequential navigation order discussed and moved to Ready for approval.