<Thaddeus> +present

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i am stuck in wcag. ping me when u need me to join

<Thaddeus> I need to reset my credentials to join call. Will join shortly

<jamesn> scribe: Irfan

Reminder: Hotels for May F2F filling up – book now if attending. (2 mins)

James: book your hotels for face to face. if you haven;t booked it, please do so

Matt: do we have any preferred hotel in Toronto?

James: there are couple of hotels, close by but I am not saying about anything specific

Personalization Semantics (remainder of meeting time)

AccName pull review request

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2018Apr/0022.html

Joanie: please read and review the item that I have pasted here. there is a pull request and I need review before I commit the change and comment
... I want an actually feedback on this

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i haveingt left wcag. do u need me to leave

Personalization Semantics (remainder of meeting time)

* we are waiting for Lisa

<Thaddeus> sorry

<Thaddeus> i just need the number to dial

welcome Lisa!

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> thank u!

James: we should probably move on. Is everyone following the mailing list

Matt: I am behind

James: let me pull it. we want to hear mostly from Lisa before we move on this

Lisa: in specification we have, I think the best way to go to work on integration.
... there should be more integration. It should be a complete aria role.
... if we moved to APA, its going to be fragmented way. this fragmentation what we should be doing is more streamlined for impaired users

James: I like to hear if this is definitely a right way to go.
... or if there is other ways to solve the problem

Lisa: if we just limited the standard way to do it, two things likely to happen. one is no one uses it and if they use it, they are going to use it wrong
... if want people to adopt it, there should be a simply way

James: anyone else?

Jason: it seems to be that there are few expectation including mapping to APA and user agent . there are few questions...

Matt: I heard two things related to a11y API, one is, if something doesn't exist in accessibility API today, if people who consume the API or implement, are paricularly concerned. and it seems backward to me.
... Its matter of our partnership with the people who are consuming accessibility API.
... but personalization is related to ARIA working group

lisa: will AT accept it. we have some feedback
... the part of fragmentation is the risk if we are not implementing it

Matt: its a implantation risk for AT and they should learn it from us

Jason: I think it would be an easier path using existing metadata. there may be desire to implement it on API level. Its comes down to who is interested to implement and how much.

lisa: question, JJ concerns if we are part of ARIA we have to match everything to accessibility API. Is that a requirement or is that just standard of W3C?

Joanie: i perosnally of the opinion that aria by definition should match to accessibility API. that is what ARIA does
... there are lot of things that are going to done independently. you dont want all of them to display on screen. some tools that are not going to be supported by AT.

Lisa: my question was to get through the W3C process to making the standards.

matt: i agree with Joanie 100 that aria is about the API mapping. but if somebody push the attr in DOM and not in accessibility API. this is another situation where you would not support Accessibility Object modal. Accessibility object modal is two way modal.

lisa: if we decide every module has to match everything to accessibility API then we have a problem.
... if all the tech people who are blind are using based on the technology that doesn't support personalization? thats a big limitation of the future

james: i don't think this is splintering. Personalization semantic is not on maturity level. this is personal opinion.

jason: i agree with what james just suggested . it seems to me that people who implemented AT are reply on accessibility API

<mck> +1 to the part of what James said regarding the early state where future ideal technical implementation is not well enough understood ... a home where exploring that is probably best.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say don´t conflate belongs in group and belongs in technology and to say any technology needs to define its parameters and to say web is already a large

MC: web is large collection of tech. I dont see a problem that author might be using element of aria and personalized semantic
... the aria implementation was an experiment which is not working.

MC. working draft are subject to change

james: I like to take a quick poll now.

<jamesn> Best home for personalization is APA

<MichaelC> +1

<joanie> +1

<janina> +1

<jongund> +1

+1

<Roy> +1

<Becka11y> +1

<jamesn> Best home is ARIA WG

<Thaddeus> +1 if we can work out concerns

james: we are going to discuss about it more

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1

<Thaddeus> APA

<jamesn> I don't mind where - I just want it to happen

<mck> +1

<clapierre> +1

+

<Thaddeus> +1

<Thaddeus> samew

<Thaddeus> if it dies in APA then ARIA

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)

Succeeded: s/out of/to/
Default Present: jamesn, Joanmarie_Diggs, present, Thaddeus, clapierre, MichaelC, JaEunJEmmaKu, janina, Irfan_Ali, Becka11y, Stefan
Present: jamesn Joanmarie_Diggs Thaddeus clapierre MichaelC JaEunJEmmaKu janina Irfan_Ali Becka11y Stefan
Regrets: JohnFoliot
Found Scribe: Irfan
Inferring ScribeNick: Irfan
Found Date: 12 Apr 2018
People with action items: 

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.)