– DRAFT –
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

XR Accessibility User Requirements: outcome of the Call for Consensus.

JW: The APA working group following a successful CFC, achieved consensus to publish

All is proceeding, thanks to all who contributed

Comments?

JS: No corrections, but a tiny update to let you know that our charter is granted

For two years - running to the end of July 2023

We will publish under that.

Invited Experts and company reps will have to rejoin.

I've sent email.

JW: echos Janina

JS: 45 days grace period

JB: There are guests such as Raja and Frances who can sign up as IEs.

That would be easier for us, and you will be participating more directly.

If you have questions let us know.

<janina> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/ieapp/

JS: Link to Invited expert form.

JW: We look forward to your thoughtful contributions.

<jasonjgw> Josh: he is working on preparing a publication-ready version of XR Accessibility User Requirements.

JOC: Hoping to have it early next week

JW: good to know

Any other questions or comments?

<discussion on IE invites>

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/participation

Accessibility of Remote Meetings: plans for further development.

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/ieapp/new

JW: There has been some progress following a previous discussion.

The doc was copied from the TF wiki and transfered to the APA GitHub repo.

It is now available as a draft.

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/main/remote-meetings/

JW: Most modification are editorial.

We still have decisions regarding status and circulation.

There was suggestion it could become a W3C resource or a note track deliverable for APA.

Moving it to repo and converting it doesnt prejudice it

Appreciate Scotts review of the draft.

Comments?

SH: Huge thanks to Jason on getting this onto Github etc

To frame where this is going, I'd like to ask the group if there is more they would like to add?

Would people like a chance to review?

+1 to Scott

JW: I'd like to do that

<Joshue108> s/+1 to Scott /JOC: +1 to Scott

Thanks to Judy for guidance and evolution

We should review and bring it back for discussion for wider review etc

Whatever the ultimate process is to be.

There is a desire for more formal review

The public working draft procedure will be helpful for review.

JB: Thanks for having put this into the Note format.

Like it!

I've some questions - one of our goals was around getting feedback in a more structured way - it does need that.

Not just content related - but there are also concerns around having a note on this issue as it laps over other areas of our work.

Michael C made that comment, and Shawn also was looking at how this fits into Education and Outreach guidance.

WAI CC is a good place to discuss this.

Janina and I can raise this in an upcoming WAI CC meeting.

I'll ask staff to look at this also.

Ideally we can get this more visible and benefit from Note track status.

JW: Do you want to update the status section to clarify?

JB: Good point - we should just ask for feedback at this point.

Will flag it to Shawn.

And Michael

Action: Josh to co-ordinate with Shawn and Michael on review of the A11y of remote meeting document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2304 - Co-ordinate with shawn and michael on review of the a11y of remote meeting document [on Joshue O'Connor - due 2021-08-18].

JW: How long do you want to review it for?

Before public review.

SH: I'm happy to progress this in a week.

JOC: Shawn is off for the rest of this week

JS: I'd like to say this could be a TPAC breakout session.

I've provisionally proposed this.

This would be a perfect topic.

JB: There have been several proposed topics.

We may have several - it would be good to do a session on this, as well as others.

Would like to flag it to other WG chairs.

JS: If we have known obvious things we should do..

JB: Time is an issue.

<janina> ack

RK: For the IRC, I learned it a bit and getting used to it now..

The comment about document work.. who is the intended audience for the A11y of Remote meetings?

RK: We have recommended processes for a11y and meetings etc

<janina> zq+

To be inclusive, just to clarify, for those two things, it would be nice to have diagrams or flow charts, IF=>This, Else=> That..

Relating to interpretation and captioning etc

It is more work.

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/

JB: Thanks Raja for comment

This is a link on previous guidance WAI did on media a11y.

This should provide some context. We tried this before and found it difficult.

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/planning/

JB: We tried this here

I appreciate that this is a multi audience document, that would be helpful with flowcharts but it is complicated.

RK: Yes it is complex

JB: Scott as lead editor do you want to take look at these pages?

SH: Sounds fine.

Regarding the audiences - the note as it stands covers a variety, from procurement for software development for remote meetings and content prep.

Happy to look at that and see what is possible

JS: Thanks for raising this.

Was thinking of the same for our upcoming Media Synchronisation Accessibility User Requirements

JS: Even as blind people we do understand the benefit of other formats for other groups.

Hopefully the GitHub process makes this easier.

JB: +1 to Janina

I suggest using a similar format - to the EO suggestion

Education and Outreach did a lot of this background work already

From the planning page there.

<Discusses a11y issues with GitHub>

<Raja> Github works well from my end (DHH)

JW: Yes, flow charts are a good idea

JW: We can also open issues on GitHub

JS: We may also need video

JW: Lets bring it back in two weeks

Comments?

Synchronization accessibility User Requirements.

JW: The media sync document has an update since last meeting.

We agreed that there should be an editors note, leaving reviewers a chance to comment on XR and immersive etc.

We want to open that for public comment - I've added that.

The text is relatively stable.

We should move it soon towards a FPWD.

Janina has some editorial improvements to suggest

JW: Comments, Janina and others?

JS: I think it is quite ready.

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/main/saur/

JS: We should try to do this for early sept

Graphics etc and improvements to the text are welcome.

JS: We need to get citations etc credited

Chunk of work

We can get this ready for FPWD in the next few weeks

JW: Reactions?

SN: Thanks for updating the draft and getting the editors note there.

We are asking for peoples input on XR - I did most of the writing, so am bringing my stengths and weaknesses

wider review will be helpful

I've kept it point of view agnostic

SN: What you find in research is limited by what you have read.

SN: My background is with the blind and dyslexic community so getting input from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community would be great.

JS: Also WGBH guidance we should look at.

<Raja> I'd be happy to help and put in more citations and related work

JB: Just to add our contact is Geoff Freed - v helpful

JS: May have moved on.

<Raja> That's a good thing to remind ourselves about related work in academic papers.

JB: Other contacts there?

<Raja> To clarify -- I can do that for deaf and hard of hearing perspectives

JS: Madeline?

JW: I've collaborated with Madeline in the past, will enquire.

<Raja> Can you state whole name? it would be helpful in lookups

JW: Getting input is important

Madeline Rothberg

<Raja> +1

JOC: Our friends in Immersive Captions and others doing work in 360 should be helpful

JW: No one disagrees that it is close to publication - if so let us know.

Natural Language Interface Accessibility User Requirements.

JW: Not much to be said at the moment - the doc is in a holding pattern at the moment, and we will be giving it more attention soon.

Getting it ready for FPWD - covers a range of requirements.

Still some open issues on GitHub please do comment.

Comments?

http://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/naur/naur/index.html

Please do have a look and we will come back to it in two weeks

JW: We hope to get this published in the next month or so.

JS: Can I point e'one to the APA TPAC page.

<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021

JS: This is where things stand - There is room to move things around

We can discuss on next call.

JW: Priorities, Media Sync, TPAC meetings and co-ordination to discuss next week

With remote meetings the week after.