Meeting minutes
<janina>
<janina> ~.
<janina> q!
Agenda Review & Announcements
janina: std. agenda, asking for announcements? None heard.
TPAC Planning https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021
janina: making progress getting meetings set up for TPAC; have moved some meetings between weeks; expect to be finalized by mid-september
janina: don't expect many more meetings, just need to get people engaged
Task Force Updates
janina: process change for how to move to CR - now require 90 days of horizontal review from 5 groups. Personalization may need to perform those horizontal reviews before we can go to CR. Some are likely complete - but def. need accessibility and security and one open issue from I18N
Janina: US holiday next Monday, religious holidays next week
janina: research questions resolved to publish synchronization accessibility user requirements (SAUR); will refer to FCC guidance within the document - working out the language for that statement; After that is complete will be issuing a CfC; will make it a bit longer due to holidays.
Lionel: curious about the FCC document
Janina: we may need to track the FCC work more closely in the future
PaulG: putting together an updated working draft for pronunciation
Janina: no one here from COGA, have been discussing TPAC meetings with the chairs around symbols and internationalization - suggests that a meeting with RQTF might be a better first step
janina: to talk about putting together another AUR doc around symbols
Lionel_Wolberger: (a bit off topic) but many APA and W3C emails are going to spam; suggest people check their spam
MichaelC: this has been a periodic problem for W3C - explains basic reasons (but W3C isn't doing anything wrong)
janina: perhaps we need to add something to onboarding emails that reminds people to whitelist W3C lists
MichaelC: AG and ARIA have already done that, we can use that as a template
FAST Update
MichaelC: talked with Josh this week, have the seeds of a project plan, want to show it off at TPAC; my geek week project (W3C staff gets to spend time doing fun tech stuff) will be to work on this
josh: geek week starts on sept. 13
josh: thinking of including the evolution of how the FAST has progressed in the demo/talk
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
<MichaelC> https://
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: HTML draft re-charter has been looked at from ARIA perspective; APA is not listed as a liaison - we have asked for that but it seems to be on hold/in discussion
janina: think we need metadata at element level in addition to page level -- personalization
Lionel_Wolberger: this could help advance personalization and get more interest
janina: registry is part of the story - there is a proposal within W3C that we provide a registry repository/ schema
Lionel_Wolberger: similar to a namespace in XML?
janina: yes, this can let people know "features" of a resource before exploring - example: knowing if a movie has audio description before renting
Janina: can selectively review the registry - for example, I care about audio description and not captions
A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
MichaelC: a11y self review for CSS scrollbars
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: they adapted our FAST checklist; they meet many req. but saying there is not provision for exposing colors of scrollbars to a11y api - they believe this is the responsibility of the a11y API
janina: is there a req. document for the A11y API?
MichaelC: will try to find;
MichaelC: this issues shows up in wide review tracker and the a11y review tracker
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
MichaelC: 6 new ones today
MichaelC: 3 are Web XR- overlays module, hit test module, and depth sensing
janina: how do they define depth
MichaelC: there is an api for how to get the information but doesn't seem to have a definition
josh: challenge with XR is identifying where there are a11y touch points that are embedded in the specs; suggest that we need to review
michael: they are FPWD should we defer?
josh: I will look at dom overlay and hit testing
janina: I will look at depth sensing
MichaelC: secure payment confirmation - FPWD
<MichaelC> Secure Payment Confirmation
MichaelC: hoping for a secure accessible receipt but this is just that user has agreed to pay
janina: group agrees no need to review
<MichaelC> DID Method Rubric v1.0
MichaelC: group indicates need to better define what decentralized means;
PaulG: lack of examples, esp. for AT
PaulG: may need an alternative form of DID - for example, git hashes aren't recognizable but we use names for branches to identify them
Lionel_Wolberger: group is passionate about decentralization; this rubric is a checklist or evaluation tool to define/access/measure.
Lionel_Wolberger: compares to robert's rules of order - they don't include accessibility, they are just rules; likewise does the decentralization "rules" operate in the same manner
Lionel_Wolberger: don't believe we need to review; when they get down to user experience we can dive deeper; currently too theoretical
janina: we won't review for now
<MichaelC> CSS Nesting Module
MichaelC: add ability to nest style rules within one another; believe it is low enough level that we don't need to review
janina: agreed
CSS Update & Comment Feedback (Amy) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
janina: any reports on outstanding items?
crickets
janina: end of call