See also: IRC log
<allanj> gk: sent link for epub conformance spec, builds on wcag and other wai stuff
<allanj> ... epub built on w3 standards, content is html, css, svg
<allanj> ... accessibility spec applies to all 3.x epub specs
<allanj> ... reference wcag, must meet wcag specs
<allanj> ... metadata conformance requirement, so user can see accessibility components
<allanj> ... looking for comments
<Judy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-cc/2016Apr/0018.html
<allanj> https://github.com/IDPF/epub-revision/issues/711
<Ryladog> http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/
<allanj> gw: which groups should I contact? perhaps send to wai-ig
<allanj> gw: with wai.next may be useful in the discussion
<allanj> jb: gw work with katie for getting info on IG
<allanj> jb: other reviews?
<allanj> kw: matf finishing touch and pointer guideline. hoping to have WCAG review
<allanj> ... touch target sizes, px vs pt, etc
<allanj> ... much discussion on matf list and other external comments
<allanj> ... want a wide review.
<allanj> kw: seeking timeline for wcag review
<allanj> awk: depends on wcag:next or 2.1 or something.
<allanj> kw: hate to lose momentum. trying to get finalized.
<allanj> ... how it gets integrated is a different issue
<allanj> ... happy to make it a separate document.
<allanj> kw: don't want to wait. finalize and move on
<allanj> khs: +1, finalize, get it out there, integrate later
<allanj> jb: can awk suggest context to focus review comments
<allanj> ... wcag review of TF documents...give context for review vs integration
<allanj> awk: getting content from TF then have draft extension model. are we doing that or pivoting to some other path
<allanj> ... if extension have a clearer path, then {sorry missed the last bit}
<allanj> jb: awk and kw and khs should meet to work
<allanj> awk: can talk. but what goes out for review...a note, a draft note, or some other document to send for review
<allanj> khs: frame it...important content not sure how it will be published integrated, but needs wide review
<allanj> jb: big agenda. awk - khs - kw to meet off line. sort out context of how to frame for wai-ig
<allanj> jb: any other documents? cross review, announcements?
<scribe> scribe: Rich
Judy: HTML accessibility bug processing.
This is a meeting to clear HTML accessibility bugs. Bug-processing moved
from HTML A11y TF to the new web platform working group which is the
current HTML WG
... Leonie has brought this up at the APA working group
... and will be regularly announcing it in APA
... I notice that in the past processing bugs in the html a11y task
force there were issues where we needed input from the WCAG working
group and were generally not successful in doing so
... Can someone from WCAG watch these for review purposes?
... Katie, I think you mentioned it to the WAI IG already
Katie: yes
Judy: I think Leonie is off for the next few
meetings
... There is a mail from Charles on this regarding the stage that they
are in processing these issues
... continuing to mention this on the WAI IG list is good
Judy: I am encouraging that there be
notification when issues relevant to working groups are taken up by TAG
... Rich, Janina, and Michael, I will send up some links so you can see
agenda items they are taking up
Judy: I am looking for nominations for
issues to discuss
... As in updated charter, I want to encourage people to look at things
like APA spec. reviews, EOWG, RQTF
... On some items we may want to encourage more community feedback
... We expect more from research task force
... I am looking for ideas to pass to Katie on what and how we can move
focus questions in a sensible pace to the WAI IG discussion
Katie: What things like APA spec. review to discuss on a WAI mailing list?
Janina: I am not sure I have a good answer for you off the top of my head
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review
Janina: Let’s look at this WIKI
Katie: what section should we discuss most?
Janina: Community groups is a useful
discussion
... So many groups have been started
... A wider look would be useful
Katie: You and I will brainstorm on this
Rich: Project to have Pseudo last call on ARIA 1.1, ARIA graphics, and dpub aria modules by June for a formal review
<Judy> agenda order is 6, 7, 9, 10, 8
Rich: the next stage is a feature lock
Judy: this is a way to bring people back into the groups
Katie: I was thinking about a monthly news letter
Rich: That would be perfect
Judy: I tried to do this a long time ago when we were doing far less. I think it could be great but it is helpful if it is more consistent. Let’s take it off line
Katie: some people want things all in one place
Judy: it may link back to how we are handling announcements
Judy: last meeting I had asked in an agenda item for updates on some task force work
AWK: The low vision task force is reviewing
the comments and requirements document and building out the gap analysis
to build the success criteria
... there are a few comments left to address but we are not releasing
anything soon
... There was definitely feedback from a lot of people including some
that were not involved. The feedback was not overwhelming but it was a
good mix
RESOLUTION: Rich Liaison for Katie WAI IG
For ARIA
Judy: some times people feel there comments
are not addressed as feedback does not come quickly, so informal WAI IG
"thanks for feedback" may be helpful
Katie: I will work to ensure that happens.
Judy: If you were to try to set a consistent expectation, that may be difficult to ensure
<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comments_on_WCAG.Next_Models
AWK: John and Jeanne did some work gathering
thoughts from the email discussions and solicited some feedback
... this URL aggregates the information
... we will be discussing at the next editors meeting
Michael: we discussed this in January. The
author and user agent groups closed but they may still be relevant
... In particular in exploration of WCAG requirements we want a 3.0
guidelines that included content and user agent requirements. We need to
see how authoring tools might fit in
... We have not take this to the WCAG WG yet as we don’t have consensus
on the explanation. It seems to make sense to widen the discussion to
this group
Katie: It is good to think about this and it is a discussion that need to happen
George: with the digital publishing interest group and we see convergence of word processing documents it is becoming increasingly important to move authoring tools and user agent requirements into the digital web
Judy: I am wondering on your thoughts on the
integration of these topics into the WCAG discussion to deal with the
WCAG 3.0 phase more seamlessly
... I am wondering if Andrew, Michael, and Josh might reserve WG time to
discuss this
AWK: Certainly we need to discuss this further. We have lots left to think about. I don’t see that being a problem
Rich: ARIA 2.0 and APIs work will potentially impact WCAG 3 down the road. We have never had to deal with APIs
Judy: earlier in the call somebody mentioned
community group
... the other aspect of the community groups is the W3C using these
groups to incubate work related to existing WGs
... should we invite CGs to this call, when incubating Rec-track work
like Automated WCAG Monitoring CG
... this could potentially be a task force in the WCAG working group
... That opens the question do we open a call
... Cynthia was looking at work, potential about APIs coming out of
Indie UI
... take work out and into a chartered WG
... Unless I hear any concerns then I will make an invitation to the
Auto WCAG Chair
George: Regrets for the May 11 meeting as I am giving a keynote at the digicon conference with TimBL
Katie: Is it possible to move this a half hour later?
Judy: if we do that we miss all of Jim Allen
... I will reask the question about timing of this meeting on the list;
I received no response to my previous on-list question