-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 256
2024‐08‐02
Attendance (8): Bruce Bailey, Giacomo Petri, Francis Storr, Ken Franqueiro, Mike Gower, Lori Oakley, Patrick Lauke, Scott O'Hara
Regrets: Lori, Gundula
-
Reminder on ErratumRaised label -- namely batching up for CFC and republication (i.e., date)
-
Ken updating ReadMe, Mike and Bruce updating wiki (including process) to match
-
Ken working on changing Understanding (etc.) to use PR date rather than most recent build date.
-
OT, but W3C Public mailing list archives has a nice facelift!
Following standard agenda:
- Review ‘For discussion’ items
- Review ‘Drafted’ items (30 min), either:
- i. move back to In progress, with more work to do
- ii. move to Ready for approval, if there is general agreement the issue is sufficiently resolved
- iii. leave in Drafted, if discussion was not concluded satisfactorily
- Review issues closed and project items closed
- Review ‘To do’.
- Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open discussions.
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.