Maryjom: let's split the definition into cases, first of which where it's defined by the platform … use definitions when available, otherwise say there are other standards out there Sam: some of pixel size is antiquated because it uses a curved angle Link to updated proposed definition: w3c/ wcag2ict#98 (comment) … javila mentioned tools exist for some platforms to measure angle or size … Sam contributed: devices that don't have a definition of DIP, question of whether the angle would work in such a situation … we may want to use those definitions when they exist says Mitchell, otherwise fall back to viewing angle density-independent pixel on Android, see issue comments for size definitions … different platforms define the concept of DIP, with different names, e.g. Maryjom: we agreed previously "device independent pixel" is a better term for non-web ICT ![]() Link to Mitchell’s comment on the definition: w3c/ wcag2ict#98 (comment) Issue 98 for proposing guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow: w3c/ wcag2ict#98 … maybe we describe the wide variety of closed functionality products, they might have a specific use case or technology in mind Project standup and planning Discussion on definition of Device-independent pixels … is it enough to say that, any other considerations to be noted? Maryjom: this analysis not expected to cover that level of detail, would be left to another standards group, because we're not tasked with coming up with requirements Maryjom: agree it's for more than blindness … expect more work required for programmatically determinable to make things functional for more disability types … but now programmatically determinable becomes important for user groups: cognitive, voice control … in past many assumed closed means closed to screen readers, so app must provide own speech GreggVan: heads up on closed functionality, problem that all the standards have, we'll see in ANPRM from Access board but for now we're the first standard tackling … similar analysis is going on for text and command line applications … looking to touch base with contributors on Problematic for Closed Functionality section, between our weekly calls … we should now concurrently work on 2.1 open issues, looking for owners for a few issues Maryjom: progress board is now up to date, showing AGWG progress and current tasks in progress in our task force There's a lot of AAA, and it will take a while to get through them all. I don't think we can do that along with the current round of updates. mitch11: the publication process doesn't preclude going back to AGWG? It will take us enough time to get A and AA done for EN 301 549. None of the regulatory standards require AAA. maryjo: AAA is not in the timeline, it will have to be later. … so we focus on remaining work items of above items Mary Jo working with Michael on technical parts ![]() … appendix on criteria problematic for closed functionality, aiming for June 30 to AGWG and publication process, leading to publishing in July this timing might be at risk … text-based interfaces appears on track for June ![]() Maryjom: progress slower than expected on Reflow Link to schedule and milestones: / w3c/ wcag2ict/ wiki/ Schedule-and-milestones w3c/ wcag2ict/ wiki/ Scribe-list-&-instructions Announcements
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |