W3C

- DRAFT -

Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

15 Jul 2020

Attendees

Present
jasonjgw, janina, nicolocarp_, SteveNoble, Joshue, nicolocarp, scott_h, Judy, Joshue108
Regrets
Chair
jasonjgw
Scribe
Joshue108

Contents


Accessibility of the Web of Things - revised Statement.

Upcoming W3C workshops.

JS: They are looking at primitives

They are trying to think what are the most applicable cross platform things.

https://www.w3.org/2020/maps/

<jasonjgw> Josh notes a recent meeting to discuss mutual interest in the work associated with the mapping workshop.

<jasonjgw> Josh notes related work and connections established during the meeting.

<jasonjgw> Josh notes the discussion of including location as an important concept that needs to be integrated into Web technologies. Visual maps are simply a representation.

<jasonjgw> A map element use case requirements document has been developed.

https://maps4html.org/HTML-Map-Element-UseCases-Requirements/

<jasonjgw> There was general support for taking accessibility into account, and progressing the collaboration.

<jasonjgw> Location in the browser is a significant interest - location-related services were noted as desirable, but the details of what this means weren't clear from the conversation at the meeting.

<jasonjgw> Josh notes the idea of deifning a place in the environment and having information/services attached to it.

<jasonjgw> There was also discussion of adding geospatial features to HTML.

<jasonjgw> The locations/objects would be treated as primitives, with the UI built on them.

JS: Good overview Josh
... I'm wondering if we need to read thru their docs and get a better idea

Does that make sense Nicolo? COuld you do that and see if there is nexus?

NC: Yes, I think i could

JS: Then we can see what we could add.

NC: I pinged Josh with the work that I've done on AR and Geolocation and a11y

I can talk about two different topics and you can say what would be of most interest.

I can then go deep technically.

What I did was create AR on the Web..

You can use AFrame and HTML.

This allows designers and artists to define places of interest

With lat and long - position is bound there.

You can define content, 2D and 3D models.

Then running with the GPS activated you can see that content.

That is all overlayed.,

This can be a more acessible way to navigate..

Some people have difficulty understanding maps and their location..

If you have things you can see then you can see arrows to go left, go right etc.

There is an example using Google Maps AR

Good example of a11y and augmented reality.

We can also create apps using HTML standard technologies, and ARIA attributes with speech synths..

navigatation is possible via Geolocation entities.

A user can walk around and hear about places, spatial relationships

So these are topcis I can discuss and go deeper

THen I can send overview and you can tell me what is interesting etc

JS: Sounds good - they have started something with a MapML - and want it in HTML

With you and your background, you are in a good position to figure this out.

NC: Makes sense!

+1 to Nicolo going in :-)

JW: They are on my list.

JOC: How does that relate to our position?

JS: Lets read up and discuss next week?

JOC: Sounds good.

Accessibility of the Web of Things - revised Statement.

JW: Revised statement on WoT consensus
... Janina?

JS: Really likes the roles that people play overview really well.

I'm not sure we need GPII statement.

It doesn't add much - don't see a good reason to include.

<gives history of previous IndieUI meeting>

JS: It potentially alientated one of the attendees.
... So I'm cautious.

SH: I found the GPII part helpful - to orientate around preferences etc.

I do take your point tho.

JS: It's important for all in a11y but for those working on developing tech it is problematic referring to that spec in too much detail.

+1 to Janina

JW: I'm referring to it in academic content.

Rather than something that may be implemented.

JS: What is the purpose of the statement? Taking it out is more useful.

If we take this approach we could reference others.

JS: The roles piece is very strong etc but not clear what the reference serves.

SH: I'd like to keep it, helpful for ref.

JOC: I'm inclined to remove it also - but we do need to look at the work they are doing and understand how it relates to some of ours.

JS: I've got some more points..

SH: Are there other resources that give people an understanding of this area.

JS: Can't think of anything?

JOC: Am curious, does the GPII show the benefits of personalisation and the web or does it relate to WoT?

SH: Useful for broader conceptual demonstration.

JB: I'm wondering if we should get Gregg in to give presentation.

We may need to integrate into our planning.

It is still in development, a la the Morpheus approach.

JS: Sounds good but the question is of keeping the current reference.

JW: WHat about the Universal Remote Control?

JS: That seems more relevant.

<discussion on academia and industry>

JW: Seems relevant for WoT discussion.
... Lets try for concensus.

JS: I can do this on email.

We can refer to it as being illustrative, that would be better.

JW: I can draft, but could Janina comment on list.

JS: Yes.

SH: Good resolution.

JOC: It seems like GPII maybe more of a wholesale solution and some vendors may balk at that.

JS: We blew a chance with a major vendor.
... Stats vs Rule based approaches..

The field can advance - there are many small incremental changes that may not change much.

JS: We accept breakage out of need.

SH: Would like to hear from Gregg.

JOC: What is Morpheus?

JB: Implementation of GPII concepts.

JS: <gives overview>

JOC: Lets do that next week.

New WebRTC Charter

<Judy> /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2020Jul/0012.html//lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2020Jul/0012.html

<Judy> https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-charter/webrtc-charter.html

JB: <gives overview of charter and a11y>
... There is a benefits of RTC doc that Josh worked on.

JOC: Yup, sent it to round robin with Judy, Janina, Jason and Shadi

Not in public or list space.

https://www.w3.org/TR/raur/#internet-relay-chat-irc-style-interfaces-required-by-blind-users

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/15 14:02:04 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2020Jul/0012.html/
Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, nicolocarp_, SteveNoble, Joshue, nicolocarp, scott_h, Judy
Present: jasonjgw janina nicolocarp_ SteveNoble Joshue nicolocarp scott_h Judy Joshue108
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Joshue108
Inferring Scribes: Joshue108
Found Date: 15 Jul 2020
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.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]