<janina> Argh. Webex isn't recognizing the meeting code!
<janina> Yo, John. Webex doesn't like us today! At least, it doesn't like me.
<MichaelC> URGH
<janina> Waiting for Michael to see whether he can make magic
<janina> Hi, Ian. We're having Webex trouble. Please stand by.
<scribe> scribe: JF
JS: stock agenda - one important
agenda addition. We need to recharter this year
... so we'll need to talk about goals for the year
JS: our primary activity that we
need to focus on is rechartering. Our charter expires in July,
so we need a draft charter in about 2 months time (March
2018)
... we need to look at a three-year charter. What can we
achieve in those 3 years?
we've done most of what we set out to do except for the CAPTCHA note, which we may not get to
JS: more concerned about the
payments work - although it may be more work than we
realize
... other activities we should look at is CSS progress
even after the TPAC meeting we have gaps and unanswered questions.
We should also start using the survey tool as we advance our specs (or assignments to review other specs)
WE agreed to this at TPAC
JS: finally we want to follow up on the AAM for Web Editing gets done
JF: perhaps working on the CAPTCHA work may be an easy win
JS: it may be a bigger task than it appears on the surface. May require significant re-writing, and then process+time
MC: may want to focus on other tasks first. Kind of feels a 'past-tense' topic, yet "Accessible Authentication" appears to be a new and more current task
JS: yes, the methods & emergent devices will need to be watched carefully - implementations will be where the work is
it may be fine, but we should ensure we continue to track it to make sure it is OK, or stays OK
JS: CAPTCHA is still around, but it feels very much "yesterday"
MC: likely worth updating. Most
of the guidance in the old doc remains valid, and we may want
to do a minor update to address changes over time
... but putting focus on more current technologies [sic] may be
more valuable
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say Web of things, automotive, WebVR, payments, CSS, Graphics, multimedia, I18N relationship, security relationship, a11y technical coordination, a11y
MC: W3C sees our accessibility reviews as a key value-add
being able to deliver on that will be very critical and important to us
we need to look at our ability to broaden our coverage of new verticals
MC: also a role for coordination
between APA and other WGs (etc.)
... This will require more resources, but having them on a list
will perhaps attract more input and assistance
LW: if we use the areas we want
to target, we may be able to attract more talent
... anything WebVR related I'm interested in
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that this is a current issue at WCAG 2.1
[side discussion about the research group and webVR
LW: agree with M. Cooper to look at this at a high-level (Leonie volunteers)
JS: relates to re-chartering, so
agree we need to get going on this
... we can do mu7ch of this async, but should we keep a topic
open for recharting and verticals of interest?
MC: yes. especially looking at
our charter. keeping the verticals "open" for now is important,
but we should focus on them a bit later
... anticipating more 'pressure' / expectations from W3M
... plenty we can work on, but making it into something useful
and real is our current task
LW: will return next week with some thoughts
JS: any other thoughts regarding overall plans?
IP: we are pretty much at the
same place as we were last year (i.e. no real progress)
... at the moment however the work load for reviewing needs
more eyeballs for reviewing
we may not get much interest in (from) the CSS WG members to join a TF
JS: didn't hear any particular solutions coming from the CSS WG - instead they seemed to agree there are issues, and they are waiting for us to offer solutions (etc.)
nor will they be prepared to assist with any review
IP: right now proposed solutions
are non-normative "suggestions" - as opposed to actual changes
to the spec
... The CSS WG seemed happy to accept that kind of input, as
opposed to making significant changes to the spec
JS: Do we want to do that spec-by-spec as we do the reviews, or roll it all up into a single document
IP: suspect we should start spec by spec, and adding the guidance at that level
LW: suspect it will be a bit of both: high level stuff in the actual spec, and perhaps a different, more robust non-normative document
IP: agree. Not complicated, but work required
LW: returning to other item: can't really expect a lot of input from the CSS WG members (who may feel ill-equipped to do actual a11y reviews)
IP: yes, and key players are also
likely in high demand to do other tasks
... or, we may have those CSS experts review our reviews
JS: yes, the sense I got at TPAC was that they wanted us to take the lead, and they would support
so +1 to recruiting, and WAI IG seems like a good place to go looking
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention reactive and proactive projects and to talk about throughput
MC: we started about discussing our 'reactive' work (reviewing CSS specs) - we also need to think about how to get ahead of that and manage emergent work earlier
so that we can start switching to a proactive mode, where we bring our requirements to the table first, not later
MC: we haven't really leveraged CSS to address a11y concerns, even though historically that was one of the major drivers of CSS early on
JS: navigation may be a good place to start there...
MC: CSS should remain a priority veritical for APA
JS: asking Ian to draft a note for WAI IG soliciting "fresh blood"
IP: agrees - task for this week
JS: suspect that not much changed over the holiday period
MC: only a couple are really new
<MichaelC> HTML 5.3
HTML5.3
JS: agree we should look at this, but should wait for Leonie
<MichaelC> Web of Things (WoT) Security and Privacy Considerations
MC: non-normative guidance. Not intended to limit security & privacy solutions
JS: I think we should look at this. Great example of a document where we should have gotten involved earlier
<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review Web of Things (WoT) Security and Privacy Considerations - due 4 weeks
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2160 - Review web of things (wot) security and privacy considerations [on Janina Sajka - due 2018-01-31].
<MichaelC> action-2160: https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-security/
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2160 Review web of things (wot) security and privacy considerations.
MC: if we send them comments, they may update that doc. No comments may suggest it's "perfect" as is...
<MichaelC> action-2160: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_of_Things_(WoT)_Security_and_Privacy_Considerations
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2160 Review web of things (wot) security and privacy considerations.
<MichaelC> Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials - Level 1
MC: received an explicit review request for Web Authentication (under a previous title)
<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials - Level 1
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2161 - Review web authentication: an api for accessing public key credentials - level 1 [on Janina Sajka - due 2018-01-10].
<MichaelC> action-2161: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2161 Review web authentication: an api for accessing public key credentials - level 1.
<MichaelC> action-2161: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_Authentication:_An_API_for_accessing_Public_Key_Credentials_-_Level_1
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2161 Review web authentication: an api for accessing public key credentials - level 1.
<MichaelC> WebVTT: The Web Video Text Tracks Format
<MichaelC> Request for feedback on PF comments from 2015
<MichaelC> ACTION: JF to prepare response to WebVTT request for feedback on 2015 comments
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2162 - Prepare response to webvtt request for feedback on 2015 comments [on John Foliot - due 2018-01-10].
<MichaelC> action-2162: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2017Dec/0107.html
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2162 Prepare response to webvtt request for feedback on 2015 comments.
<MichaelC> CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 4
IP: will take a quick look and respond
<MichaelC> ACTION: Ian to manage review of CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 4
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2163 - Manage review of css basic user interface module level 4 [on Ian Pouncey - due 2018-01-10].
<MichaelC> action-2163: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-ui-4/
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2163 Manage review of css basic user interface module level 4.
<MichaelC> ACTION-2163: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/CSS_Basic_User_Interface_Module_Level_4
<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-2163 Manage review of css basic user interface module level 4.
<MichaelC> Gone to CR while we are still trying to review: CSS Counter Styles Level 3, CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1, CSS Scroll Snap Module Level 1
IP: reviewing status - refer back to discussion earlier on call: spot notes and reference back to a larger non-normative document
MC: If possible, try to keep the APA wiki pages up to date as well as the CSS github account
JS: anything else?
[crickets]
JS: meeting ajorned
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: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, Becka11y, MichaelC, Léonie, IanPouncey, JF Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs Becka11y MichaelC Léonie IanPouncey JF Regrets: Becky Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 03 Jan 2018 People with action items: ian janina jf 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]