See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 March 2015
<janina> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: joanie
JS: Our main topic today is a discussion of feedback we have gotten from the AC.
... They raised the possibility about our splitting.
... Judy would like to know how we feel about this.
... Is there anyone with news items for the good of the order?
<richardschwerdtfeger> http://digitalpub.abcd.harvard.edu/blog/preview-april-2015-web-accessibility-session
RS: I will be speaking at Harvard next week.
JS: Can we participate remotely?
RS: Not that I'm aware of. But people in the area who want to go should talk to me.
... The event is next Thursday.
... The information is in the link I provided (above).
JS: We have regrets from Cynthia.
... Gregg V has agreed to reschedule for two weeks from today (8 April).
... Issues?
RS: I don't think so.
JS: Ok, I'll confirm with Gregg.
... Cynthia also wanted to postpone her WAPA talk.
JS: Any edits, corrections, etc.?
... Hearing none, objections to post the minutes?
(None)
RESOLUTION: Michael will post the minutes from last week's minutes to the public mailing list.
action-1516
<trackbot> action-1516 -- Shane McCarron to Review dom 3 events wd http://www.w3.org/tr/2014/wd-dom-level-3-events-20140925/ -- due 2014-10-08 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1516
JS: I have done that, though not written it up.
<MichaelC> close action-1586
<trackbot> Closed action-1586.
action-1580
<trackbot> action-1580 -- John Foliot to Review screen capture http://www.w3.org/tr/screen-capture/ -- due 2015-03-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1580
JF: I started looking at this.
... If you could put this for next week.
JS: I think this is being superceded.
<MichaelC> action-1580 due 1 week
<trackbot> Set action-1580 Review screen capture http://www.w3.org/tr/screen-capture/ due date to 2015-04-01.
JS: We have several capture specs.
... I think we have an whole overview that we need to bring up with the TAG.
... If you John could participate in the discussion with the TAG.
JF: I can do that.
MC: That's it for recent actions.
MC: Mixed content, which I don't think we need to review as we sent comments on their last call.
JS: Right. Any disagreement?
(None)
MC: CR on xpath and xquery. Too low level?
(agreed)
MC: There's a document not called a working draft, or anything.
... I don't think we need to track this.
<MichaelC> Manifest for web application
(MC reads from above-linked document)
RS: This is an annotation for content?
MC: A manifest.
FE: The only thing to be concerned about is if they identified the language.
MC: There's a lang feature and an icon feature.
JS: So there should be alternative text for the icon.
FE: Would you put alternative text in a manifest?
RS: You could put all of this in a manifest.
MC: There isn't alternative text for the icon. But in previous discussions, the icon was said to represent the entire thing.
RS: Is this information we need to expose to ATs?
FE: It's the icon for the application
RS: Is this a different file?
MC: It's a json. How you get it and what you do with it, I'm not sure.
RS: Is it in your page?
MC: The last line of the abstract (reads it)
FE: It would be in the header. But they're giving explicit instructions of how it's linked.
... So it's not in the body where a user would encounter it.
RS: I'm wondering if this is something you'd want to pull out of the application to expose to an assistive technology.
JS: Why would you have an icon reference if you didn't want to do that?
MC: I think it's like a favicon.
JN: Sounds like there's enough here to want to review it.
FE: I'll review it. How about three weeks?
<MichaelC> ACTION: esch to review Manifest for web application http://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/ - due 3 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/25-pf-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1604 - Review manifest for web application http://www.w3.org/tr/appmanifest/ [on Fred Esch - due 2015-04-15].
JS: Fine as we're not in a hurry.
MC: That's it.
<MichaelC> Data Visualization Community Group
MC: One community group, data visualization.
... (Reads from above-linked document)
... Mailing list has not had any activity.
... And a chair has not been selected.
... There are 22 participants.
JS: They only have shown intent.
FE: If they do progress, Doug will point them to the SVG Accessibility TF.
(Group agrees)
JS: We have a lot of people in the review saying "go ahead"
... But several commenters really think we should split into two groups, separating ARIA from spec review.
... One commenter did say they wonder if people have been hesitant to join because they don't want to sign off on the intellectual property conditions.
RS: Isn't that consistent across all W3C?
JS: Yes, but most groups don't do spec review.
... So let's say you don't want to join IndieUI because of IP, you just don't join it.
... But that's not the case with PF, because they might not want to sign off on ARIA.
RS: This is the first time that I have ever heard this about an accessibility group.
... My concern was if we break it up, the problem we're going to run into is that we won't get the attendance we get now.
... Some people might be here because they're involved with ARIA.
JS: This came up in the past with previous charter reviews.
... The same party has raised it again, and now we also have formal objections.
JN: I didn't see any formal objections on the split part.
... But I think those stated the formal objection was not related to the split part.
RS: I think that's the case (what JN stated)
MC: Some commenters identified what was and wasn't part of the formal objection.
... The survey doesn't provide the means to provide the granularity, so they did it via comments.
RS: Maybe you should ask for clarification about what they meant to object to.
MC: Probably there will be an opportunity to ask.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we do also need to ask question of whether PF would take over IndieUI work if offered, since it´s a dependency for IndieUI discussions
MC: Nonetheless we should have an answer about what we want to do.
... If we feel we want to split anyway, we should propose it.
... If we feel we do not want to split, we should come up with our proposal and our rationale.
... I believe the formal objectors would be willing to listen to that.
... Following my meeting with WAI, we need to discuss the possibility of PF taking over IndieUI, if IndieUI wants to do that.
JS: We should also consider if we're willing to accept that, and if so what are the implications with respect to splitting.
FE: What would happen to task forces?
JS: The task forces .... It depends. The HTML task force is a review function.
... We created a forum for HTML spec review (i.e. the task force)
... SVG is an ARIA spec development, and it would go with that if we split.
... Graphics is less clear. Maybe it's spec review and spec creation. The creation would be wider than ARIA though.
... I'm not sure the objectors have thought about all of these issues that closely.
RS: When we started ARIA.... I got re-engaged with PF when we started ARIA.
... And it took quite some time before we were able to produce spec text.
... We had a roadmap. Some of that went into ARIA, some went into HTML, some into WCAG.
... But at that time, we did not have a spec effort.
... And at that time, PF seemed to be going out of business because we didn't have members from industry actively involved.
... With ARIA, industry membership grew in PF.
... ARIA aside, you also have SVG, DPub, Cognitive (which I anticipate will really grow in the years to come).
... In my opinion, just putting us in a separate spec group is a very myopic view.
... It may solve that one specific issue, but I think we might lose attendees/participations.
... I don't care if it's a task force or a working group. We bring people together to get things done.
... If we split up, people might stop coming here
and accessibility issues might get missed as a result.
... And I think that would be a mistake.
JS: Another thing if we split up, we need to resource each group.
<MichaelC> acl j
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say that our spec review leads to gap identification and then to spec development
JS: Judy doesn't have people to assign to support multiple working groups.
... I don't see why we should ask more people to join the Wednesday coordination meetings, for instance.
... As far as reviewing the specs themselves, it's fairly easy to ask task forces to review
... The difference would be that we need to email the various groups (like CSS)
... I think this complicates things.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask if we have data about orgs that don´t participate in spec review function because of the technical work IP comitments
MC: There are two reasons I'm aware of for splitting.
... 1) spec review is different from spec writing
... 2) organizations might decline to participate in review because they don't want to join in the technical work.
... Do we know any orgs that feel this way?
... If there are not, then this would be a theorhetical reason and not a practical one.
RS: I do think (and did raise in my response) regarding the coordination group: The task force people are not allowed to be involved in the coordination group.
... If we were separate, then we would be able to be involved in the coordination group.
... Judy said she'd look into this.
... If the facilitators of each of the efforts could participate in the coordination group, I think that would address some of the concerns.
... I think the suggestion to split is more of a knee-jerk reaction.
JS: I know Judy has brought facilitators into the calls for specific issues.
... But you're right about in general facilitators are not pulled in, are not on the email list, etc.
RS: And there's some people working as editors who could also provide some perspective.
... So there is value opening the discussion to the broader audience.
JN: What is this about bringing Indie UI into PF?
... This is the first I've heard of it. And what are the implications for people doing ARIA work?
JS: The Indie UI charter is expiring this month.
... And it has more structure than it seems to need.
... Originally we did this because we thought it would be faster than doing it through PF.
... And back then we had a partner.
... The partnership and task force (joint with Web Events) lasted only a short time.
... So the joint work really never happened.
... Some of Indie UI's work has been picked up (e.g. in CSS, Editing).
... Whether that can continue, we expect that some things we develop could be picked up by other groups.
... But the existing structure is not working as well as we thought it would initially.
... And sometimes it's hard to distinguish an Indie UI call from a PF call.
... So the thought it to bring Indie UI into our group and continue to develop those specs as part of a subteam of PF.
... The context spec could be done that way. What happens with Events is less
clear.
... Some people think we send Events to Web Apps and Context to CSS.
RS: I know one organization has said that.
... My concern is that the group got together to create these specs. What has happened instead is that they went into other specs (e.g. CSS media queries).
... But some has not. And people had the expectation that some things were being addressed, and weren't.
... If we need to put people in other working groups, we can do that.
... The accessibility issues are going to be addressed because we're putting people into those groups.
... That doesn't mean Indie UI needs to create a spec.
... That group should be able to fill any gaps.
... But we need device-independent solutions.
... And we need people in those other groups if these specs are not going to be ours.
JN: My concern is if they come into PF, we'd have to recharter.
JS: We'd have to add that to our current rechartering.
JN: There are some IP issues.
MC: The charter is going to have to be redone anyways, so this is a good time to discuss this issue.
RS: Do you have things like amendments to charters?
MC: We're under formal extension until mid-may.
... But, no, there's not an amendment procedure. You simply recharter.
RS: On the other hand, the charter does have ARIA. Could context or events be part of ARIA?
MC: I worry that if we were to start working on ARIA events... I think web apps might question that.
... Web Apps are now doing events across the board and already taken up some of the Indie UI events.
... So I think ARIA events would be hard to sell.
... I think we can say we want to incubate technical work that is not planned for a spec, but instead intended to ultimately be adopted by another group and their spec.
JS: The incubator function has also been suggested.
MC: One is being an incubator only, another is taking over the technical work development.
... The latter has IP implications.
JS: This is similar to what Cynthia brought up at TPAC (WAPA).
... Some could be Web Apps and some WAPA.
... The decision to create Indie UI was made in 2010 by the ARIA group, I believe.
... We were trying to be economical on getting this work done.
... We're running out of time.
... We need to come to a resolution about this.
... Consensus needs to include email discussion.
... I'll raise this on list. Please participate.
... We'll resume this at the 1 April call.
RS: I won't be at the next meeting, but I don't want the group split up.