Meeting minutes
Naming progress, status of EO effort
CSUN debrief
ERF
<becky> s/ERB/eBRF
eBRF
CharlesL: American printing house (APH) proposing a new standard for BRF (preformatted braille format). It isn't a formal standard but has been well adopted. Used similar to a PDF - preformatted. eBRG is an electronic format
CharlesL: eBRF is new standard, looks like an ePUB - zip file with mulitiple files with different types of content
CharlesL: proposal is a word document - pointed out it should be in github so people can comment;
CharlesL: looking at XHTML - probably shouldn't limit themselves and use HTML; Charles had concerns for some other missing pieces - no bulleted lists, no table of contents, etc
<Lionel> present?
CharlesL: current owning group, APH, doesn't want to own - thinking maybe W3C or Daisy to take this over
CharlesL: others agree with additions I suggested
janina: I would welcome this in APA, it is within scope, agree it needs to be more organized; Daisy seems like just another avenue into W3C since Daisy is engaged in ePUB
Lionel: to clarify a comment about ARIA not being good for braille - how does that affect personalization as I explain personalization as ARIA for personalizing the page
janina: believe we need a more generic technology for accessibility - ARIA is narrowly defined to work with Text to speech
lionel: will wait for additional investigation by APA chairs before pursuing eBRF under APA
lionel: asked for relevance of braille given increase in TTS usage; Braille vendors indicated it is a literacy issue - some people are better at learning via written words vs. spoken word
janina: also have issues with mis-pronunciation issues with TTS
CharlesL: eBRF meeting was good - 30+ people from industry in attendance
CSUN debrief
Content Module Implementations Status (Follow-up on i18n issue #144)
CSUN feedback
Lionel: my first CSUN, happy that I went; evangelized personalization and got positive response. spoke with Phill Jenkins from IBM and he was interested in working on an implementation
Lionel: Kit W from Salesforce was also interested in an implementation; Chuck and someone else from Oracle also expressed interest
lionel: Chuck Adams is person from Oracle. great presentation from Matthew
<Lionel> Lionel adds to the minutes: Trailhead salesforce (where Kit thinks he can do an implementation)
Matthew_Atkinson: lots of great conversations with AGWG chairs and others
<Matthew_Atkinson> https://
Matthew_Atkinson: Klaus has a similar technology to personalization including AAC support; Easy reading EU project
<Matthew_Atkinson> Interim report from CSUN: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: rrsagent, make minutes
Lionel: will work with group to write up an "ask" from various folks about implementing personalization
sharon: will make sure folks at IBM are working together rather than silos
Matthew_Atkinson: sent an email to the list. it references implementation. people are asking that isn't there already a mechanism for implementing personalization - for example, rdf item props works now.
Lionel: RDF is not normative and that causes problems
Matthew_Atkinson: we get this by developer focused people; Lionel's answer is good but we need to be able to explain further
Matthew_Atkinson: Klaus W is interested in another broad discussion about the burden of responsibility between guideline, content authors, and AT. People feel it is a burden on content authors and is extra work. one way to approach is to have a common framework for all a11y additions. Obviously that is a big discussion larger than this group
lionel: authoring load came up at the CSUN presentation and also in private conversations
Janina: we also heard this at TPAC
lionel: continual innovation everywhere - more Text to speech; magnification, etc. very exciting
Naming progress, status of EO effort
Content Module Implementations Status (Follow-up on i18n issue #144)
janina: no response yet, I will take this up with APA chairs
Roy: I spoke with I18N contact and he promised to bring that up with the group for feedback
Naming progress, status of EO effort
<Matthew_Atkinson> https://
lionel: EO did have a formal process and made an official suggestion, ADAPT. We need to respond to that before throwing out other terms; I liked ADAPT; happy to hear other comments
becky: another suggestion for naming: APT - Adaptable Personalization Techniques