-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 267
2024‐08‐16
Attendance (9): Alastair, Bruce, Filippo, Francis, Gundala, Ken F, Lori, Patrick, Steve F
Regrets: Mike, Giacomo
- We sent seven items to AG back on the 7th. WCAG2-Issues are on the on agenda for the Tuesday AG call.
- Following our standing agenda.
Change 1.4.4 related mentions of "at least 200%" to "up to 200%" #3986 has a "thumbs down" from Detlev.
On the call we noted that this is using the wording from the SC, that the Understanding document is quite consistent with "up to", and we had consensus that the test-procedure should reflect the SC text. Left in for discussion on AG call.
Changes to 1.4.1 Use of Color understanding #1788 pulled back to In progress. Patrick volunteered to review, and confirm that the pass/fail aspect is clear.
Added "Duplicated text" as guidance to fulfil the 1.4.5 Images of Text success criterion in the Understanding Document #3773 touched upon, but we decided to defer until Mike and/or Giacomo are on the call. Alternatively, since the conversation thread has gotten long, Patrick offers Add note about the scope of 1.4.5 Images of Text (images used rather than text) and example #4021 as a clean PR. Left in drafted.
Added "Duplicated text" as guidance to fulfil the 1.4.5 Images of Text success criterion in the Understanding Document #3773 Mike continuing to iterate with Patrick and other. Discussion between SC being met versus not applicable. Everyone on call comfortable with either approach, and canonical wording is "does not fail" so end result is the same. Mike also note that WCAG definition for text allows that alt attribute value is text.
Scott would rather not allow:
click me
Where the image is just raster text which could easily be CSS styled text. Folks on call agree it is terrible, but not prohibited by the literal wording of SC. Concurrence that visually unpleasant approach will discourage this poor-but-passing use case.
1777
2455 clarifying that alt+ctr+X is a single character key .change is the Note. Compare file comparison flags many lines because of addition of kbd elements.
1790 discussion continues on situation where there are not pauses in dialog. Bruce is not of opinion that can't require media alternative (A) or Extended (AAA)
Patrick: the main thrust here was: if audio has NO available gaps, it's not automatically exempt from this criterion.
Patrick: This is the crux of the disagreement we had... Bruce argues that by definition of AD, even if there's visual stuff happening but there aren't any pauses, it passes AD requirement, whereas we have been arguing that no it doesn't, because demonstrably there's no description of what's happening visually
Patrick: yeah it kind of hinges on what "IMPORTANT information" is to an extent, that's where the squishiness comes in.
Giacomo ask if 1.2.5 does that automatically pass 1.2.3.
Patrick: Passing 1.2.5 passes 1.2.3 automatically in my view.
Patrick also reminded group of historical context for WCAG 2.0 where live audio was not uncommon but live video was rare. Bruce noted tension that live captioning (and live audio descriptions) is often of mediocre quality -- and that is acceptable. When posting the recording, requirement for quality of the captions is much higher (as it should be).
Scott ask for time in our next call for Reflow.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1768
Can a video with non-stop talking said to be audio described?
It is only a notes that:
- Standard Audio Description uses only pauses in dialog. Is WCAG AD definition bound by that limitation?
- Allows that, for WCAG, the default sound track can be used to meet requirement.
Patrick notes that whereas we have been arguing that no it doesn't, because demonstrably there's no description of what's happening visually
Bruce suggests formal survey to AGWG. Patrick notes that we'll need to be careful how we word the survey though...
- Still not getting as much feedback (i.e., 4 thumbs up) as we would like.
- We agree folks have enough time to weigh in.