W3C

- DRAFT -

Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

27 Jan 2016

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Janina, JF, fesch
Regrets
Leonie, Joanie, Shane
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
JF

Contents


<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask about moving the action

preview agenda with items from two minutes

<scribe> scribe: JF

JS: looking to set up a different system for looking at Spec review
... to remove the dependancy on Michael Cooper

JF: some discussion kicking off around starting a TF focused on writing unit tests, not only for ARIA 1.1 but perhaps other efforts as well

JS: we should also revisit CSS Flexbox discussions with CSS WG

CYNS: have been having some back-channel discussions there as well

JS: look to revisit in February

Cyns: MS has become a lot more engaged in this activity. With the split of ARIA and APA, MSFT is adding a new person to the work

Actions Review (Specs) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/open

Decision Policy -- Ready for CfC? http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy

JS: there has been discussion here and in the ARIA WG - there has been a bit of a re-write to help clarify and avoid some 'gotchas'

with a note that CfC's need to be handled on the admin list, not the main discussion list

which was the purpose of the admin list - it allows us to restrict the participation (comments, welcome, long discussions essentially not)

JS: believe we are ready for a CfC on this topic - Janina to issue the CfC later this week or next, in sync with the ARIA WG
... encouraging all to vote on both issues

RESOLUTION: meeting agrees to take Draft Decision Policy to CfC

Actions Review (Specs) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/open

MC:

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

MC: Action 2001

JS: on Leonie, who is not here today

ACTION 1749

RS: don't believe there is much here

MC: Potentially we can close this as it is moving forward elsewhere and appears to be OK

Cyns: leave open, and will report back soon

<MichaelC> close action-1749

<trackbot> Closed action-1749.

<MichaelC> action-1749: needs device independent stuff, but separate action

<trackbot> Notes added to action-1749 Review ui events.

MC: Need to record this in a wiki page as well

JS: this is where we need multiple hands working together
... we received a request for comments earlier this week

<janina> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/419

we just need a way to annotate the graphic, in use-cases where it may be a help screen or similar

https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

<MichaelC> needs device independent stuff, but separate action

<MichaelC> needs device independent stuff, but separate action

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/commit/04d72e16764068dea1f353e781312e325fd774f7

JS: sounds like we need to provide them with some info and details on providing better alt text and descriptions
... James N had issues around the spash screen scenario

MC: issues around color contrast as well
... who is taking the next step on this
... we should get cynthia to join the discussion to confuse everyone

[laughter]

JS: should we check back with Shane to see if Respec is a root of some problems?

fesch: Is this the issue with red text on pink background?

MC: sort of yes, but Respec had been tested previously and was pretty good a11y wise
... we use Respec as well, and know a maintainer
... we should push back

JS: perhaps its in the way we are using Respec versus how they are?

fesch: they are using warnings, etc. I've not seen before

<ShaneM> I am deep in the middle of other stuff right now, but please feel free to assign me any ReSpec related actions.

JS: give action to Shane?

<ShaneM> Note that since I am not on the call, the action could use a little context ;-)

MC: found a diagram with poor color contrast (in SVG)

<ShaneM> ok

<janina> Also, diag needs extended text descript

<janina> Or even to be accessible svg

issues around color contrast in the Respec CSS

preview agenda with items from two minutes

Spec Review Process Update -- Michael, Janina

JS: looking at how to improve this process/tool - Michael has a "tour" to show us his thoughts

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review

JS: making this up on the fly, and time for wider look here

MC: auto-generated index of all the specs we've looked at being tracked in the wiki

<MichaelC> Today we talked about https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_App_Manifest

MC: makes a new wiki page for each spec we look at - category page generates the index insertion

<MichaelC> by contrast, https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Requirements_for_WCAG_2.0_Extensions

each page records key actions/comments with dates, to facilitate lookup at a later date

as each 'milestone' is reached on a spec, we can review our internal history and discussion, to stay in sync

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Spec_Review

MC: have run into a few authoring/editing issues, but looking at ways of speeding things up more

looking at creating the wiki pages (and updates) in real time, so a second person will need to be tasked with that

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-all

<Zakim> jf, you wanted to ask about capturing date-stamps in the augto-generate process

JF: also wanted to know about time-stamping on the index page, as well as questions around the tables being used to display the different drafts (etc.) - can we get some <th> love there, and is it possible to make those tables sortable by column?

JS: when we do some work on a spec via email, we need to ensure that this gets captured here as well

MC: have talked about a tool for email scraping for some time now, however it remains a manual process still today

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/CSS_Flexible_Box_Layout_Module_Level_1

JS: we want the minimum of hand-authored work

MC: appears that the list archiving threading function isn't working here
... should we link all the emails in the wiki to overcome threading, or simply note that emails may be threaded, and to verify with the W3C archives

JS: should link to the TPAC discussions as well

(with regard to CSS flexbox)

JS: this is a dside-discussion as part of Michael's "tour"

RS: it was 2 years ago at TPAC Santa Clara that we first expressed our concerns

JS: it was a reasonabily good meeting, but not a lot was documented - we indicated that without a written solution we (APA) would have an issue moving forward

MC: Useful to link the TPAC 2014 meeting minutes as well
... this shows a continuity and "how long" we've been working on this

new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

MC: Media Queries level 4

we should really keep an eye on this

<MichaelC> ACTION: Fred to review Media Queries Level 4 https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-4/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2005 - Review media queries level 4 https://www.w3.org/tr/mediaqueries-4/ [on Fred Esch - due 2016-02-03].

<MichaelC> action-2005?

<trackbot> action-2005 -- Fred Esch to Review media queries level 4 https://www.w3.org/tr/mediaqueries-4/ -- due 2016-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2005

[MC reviewing potential specs

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP3/

we believe this needs review, not sure whom to assign it too

Draft EME spec

<MichaelC> ACTION: foliot to draft comment to ensure authoring guidance is provide on EME https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2006 - Draft comment to ensure authoring guidance is provide on eme https://www.w3.org/tr/encrypted-media/ [on John Foliot - due 2016-02-03].

<MichaelC> action-2006?

<trackbot> action-2006 -- John Foliot to Draft comment to ensure authoring guidance is provide on eme https://www.w3.org/tr/encrypted-media/ -- due 2016-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2006

<MichaelC> ACTION: fred to review SHACL Use Cases and Requirements https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2007 - Review shacl use cases and requirements https://www.w3.org/tr/shacl-ucr/ [on Fred Esch - due 2016-02-03].

MC: we need to look at specs between Jan 15 and 21st next week then

JS: yes, we are well beyond the hour
... calling end of call

<MichaelC> action-2007?

<trackbot> action-2007 -- Fred Esch to Review shacl use cases and requirements https://www.w3.org/tr/shacl-ucr/ -- due 2016-02-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2007

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: foliot to draft comment to ensure authoring guidance is provide on EME https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Fred to review Media Queries Level 4 https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-4/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: fred to review SHACL Use Cases and Requirements https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html#action03]
 

Summary of Resolutions

  1. meeting agrees to take Draft Decision Policy to CfC
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/01/27 18:14:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/DfD/CfC/
Succeeded: s/neot/not/
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: jf
Present: Janina JF fesch
Regrets: Leonie Joanie Shane

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 27 Jan 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-apa-minutes.html
People with action items: foliot fred

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]