Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

29 Nov 2017


tdrake, MichaelC, Joanmarie_Diggs, Becka11y, Léonie, janina, gottfried


<janina> scribe: becka11y

preview agenda with items from two minutes

<MichaelC> scribe: Becka11y


Telecon Schedule Through Year's End

Janina: two meetings beyond this one 6th and 13th of December

resume meetings on Jan 3, 2018

TPAC Followup {See Joint Meetings Below]

Janina: met with other working groups at TPAC - was productive

good meeting with CSS, but need to keep moving to keep credibility. Navigation issue may be bigger than CSS conversation, may need to include SVG. Also got similar questions from WebVR folks - how to navigate when move whole body/objects

research questions group is also interested in meeting with us as is WebVR group

met with automotive. That group is approaching spec in W3C space in an incremental fashion. What do we need for autonomous vehicles for people with disabilities. What can we identify as use cases that can be expanded into requirements

haven’t build user interface requirements yet - will need to convince competing companies that standardization is good; so far sharing only low level info like oil level, etc.

group asked what type of approach for user interface and Janina emphasized that we have already defined accessibility via HTML, ARIA and other specs.

Janina suggesting that we develop use cases and scenarios about the incremental issues that might benefit from a11y support (not the overall interface but tackle incrementally)

research questions group interested in thinking about that as well

good meeting with publishing - see the links in the agenda

main item out of publishing - probably some requests to HTML that will raise some questions that never got resolved around media

some issues for synchronized media will probably relate to transcipts

for example: when you add audio to a book, time becomes involved and needs to be kept in sync

pub group will probably ask about tracking pages

Issue around input events

Janinia states there is an issue around input events

need support for good inline language switching

one example is how to deal with punctuation switching, etc. and how that is announced/handled

agreed that action for input events and editing would go to Joanie but no formal action item.

<tink> ACTION: Joanie to create an Editing AAM

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2157 - Create an editing aam [on Joanmarie Diggs - due 2017-12-06].

Janina met with people working with web payments

made process writing an accessibility user requirements document

we surfaced issue of accessible receipting

from brick and mortar stores since usually get from online merchants

michael: verifying claims/receipts is important as well - so we need to support that

tim: asks if we have any standard to follow for receipts

Janina: not yet, just a use case. Also have to consider privacy

Michael: imp. use case is that you should be able to verify the amount before and after the transaction

Janina: curious about the error rate of supermarkets

Michael: should also look at the errors between posted price and scanned/electronic price

Janina: payments wants to bring more of world pop. into economy - noted that over 1 billion people don’t have a bank account

Michael: some of thos folks have a mobile provider that provides that service

Janina: payments groups wants to more formally bring those mobile people further into the process

Ted: good timing to look at this as Intuit is releasing updated go payments

Janina: how to explain accessibile object model

Michael: javascript api to ARIA

Janina: standardized access to services on OS platform

Michael: can go directly rather than via ARIA

Janina: interesting meeting with A11y Obj Model - APA needs to track their work
... working via incubator process to bring A11y Obj Model into W3C
... we did not meet with authentication group - couldn’t find a time at TPAC
... we are going to try to get a joint telecon with them - them meet following this meeting at 1:00 Boston time

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

Actions check in

perhaps assign some of Shane’s to Becka11y

Michael: will skip absent people

review file api - Joanie - not completed

Gottried completed action on media accessibilty (scribe uncertain of overall description)

<gottfried> Proposed feedback: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017Nov/0008.html

action was to review ttml profiles

<trackbot> Error finding 'was'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/users>.

Janina to issue CFC on the proposed feedback -

Janina’s action to review permissions is not completed

Additional 4 actions not completed

triage changelog of DOM 4.1 - propose transferring to Becky

<MichaelC> close action-2140

<trackbot> Closed action-2140.

Michael: will close 2140
... review shadow DOM propose assign to becky

Ted: can take the DOM 4.1 evaluation

Michael: assigning shadow DOM to becky
... payment actions stay with janina

2093 - ping action to review 3.2 - needs to remain active - push to March

<MichaelC> action-2093 due 4 months

<trackbot> Set action-2093 Re-raise svg2 for review due date to 2018-03-29.

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

Janina: New publications

<MichaelC> File API

Michael: no new publications after TPAC, one open for File Api, assigned Joannie to review but want to ask tink for input

Janina: Authentication - want to understand what is time critical to get opinions to WGAG

is issue that we don’t want people to copy content

Michael: WCAG SC that can authenticate(?) without copying info to reenter - but two factor auth. requires that
... what if we limit the amoutn that must be remembered? Others counter that any amount of remembering may be difficult from some; also concerned of breaking security

tink: chances of getting security industry to adopt any changes is going to be difficult; they will use security as a way to avoid implementing the needed accessibility

Michael: WCAG WG trying to avoid that outcome

Janina: our question should be how deeply does 2 factor authentication rely on getting additional information from another device/source - are there other options aka fingerprint reader

Michael: sent an explicit review to security group to reivew this SC

but have heard nothing

Janina: other business?

tink: got feedback during the meeting that no need for APA to review File API spec - it is too low level

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Joanie to create an Editing AAM

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/11/29 18:04:51 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: tdrake, MichaelC, Joanmarie_Diggs, Becka11y, Léonie, janina, gottfried
Present: tdrake MichaelC Joanmarie_Diggs Becka11y Léonie janina gottfried
Found Scribe: becka11y
Found Scribe: Becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y

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

Found Date: 29 Nov 2017
People with action items: joanie

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

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]