2026–05–29

Minutes from meeting on May 29, 2026

Attendance (10): Patrick H. Lauke, Scott O'Hara, Lori Oakley, Alastair Campbell, Giacomo Petri, Adam Page, Ken Franqueiro, Francis Storr, Gundula Niemann, Jonny James

Regrets: Bruce Bailey

Drafted

• #4960: Reformat tables out of Understanding 1.4.11
  • TF is happy with the latest revision
  • Moved to Ready for approval
• #5128: Small edit to Understanding Non-Text Contrast
  • Image size change is obviated by #4960
  • This PR may end up conflicting entirely with #4960 due to markup changes, so branch may ultimately need to be redone
  • Moved to Ready for approval
• #5132: Remove left-over mention of non-existent technique in F34
  • Moved to Ready for approval
• #5133: Add clarification to 1.4.11 Non-text contrast understanding about logos acting as user interface components - UIC "inherits" the exemption for logos with insufficient contrast
  • Counter-proposal to #5113: Add clarification to 1.4.11 Non-text contrast understanding about logos acting as user interface components - UIC needs to have some sufficiently contrasting aspect
  • This PR clearly exempts the UI component containing the logo, rather than leaving it to implication (whereas #5113 explicitly states the UI component is not exempt)
  • Intent is to send both #5113 and #5133 for simultaneous consideration (with clarifying note) to see which side the group lands on
  • Ken: Would this be confusing via the email? Would it be worth a survey or is that too much?
    • Alastair: Maybe start with email, and if there's confusion or dissenting opinions on both, form a survey if needed
  • Gundula: the two PRs unfortunately wound up with very similar numbers too
  • Ken: Might be worth labeling the cross-links more clearly, e.g. "#5133 (UIC inherits exception)"
  • Giacomo: What about UA stuff we briefly discussed (RE borders around focused images)?
    • Patrick: Yeah, I tested, and it seems that browsers no longer show a border around the entire image.
    • Giacomo: And that would cover this exact scenario
    • Patrick: It's more interesting if it's e.g. a button with the logo, or some kind of custom checkbox...
    • Giacomo: If no user styles are involved, an exemption could be claimed on those grounds too. Could end up with conflicting audit reports.
    • Patrick: This mainly becomes an issue if we go in the direction of #5113.
  • Gundula: Does this overlap at all with requirements around labeling everything appropriately?
    • Patrick: That might be a novel interpretation
  • Moved to Ready for approval
• #5069: Tweak PDF2 intent
  • Implements suggestion by Duff in a discussion
  • Discussion around clarifying the sentence
  • Moved to Ready for approval
• #5090: Add C40 (two-color focus) as sufficient for 1.4.11 Non-text contrast
  • Discussion around Detlev's "provisional thumbs down" because this cannot unilaterally pass 1.4.11
    • Ken reminds that this is associated under a specific Situation
    • Patrick suggested perhaps qualifying this with a suffix after the technique number
    • Giacomo points out that G195 is along similar lines to C40, and included as sufficient in the same place (so maybe the Situation is indeed intended to scope this?)