Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

20 Jul 2016

See also: IRC log


Janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, LJWatson, ShaneM, fesch, MichaelC, Cyns, Gottfried


<janina> 2 agenda+ TPAC 2016 Planning [See Below]

<janina> 3 agenda+ Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

<janina> 4 agenda+ new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

<janina> 5 agenda+ Decision Policy Review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jul/0026.html

<janina> 6 agenda+ CSS Task Force Progress [See Below]

<janina> 7 agenda+ Action-2011 -- Michiel, Janina [See Below]

<janina> 8 agenda+ Other Business

<janina> 9 agenda+ next and future meetings

<janina> 10 agenda+ be donezakim, clear agenda

preview agenda with items from two minutes

<LJWatson> pesent+ LJWatson

<scribe> scribe: ShaneM

LJWatson: update on html 5.1. wrapping up the CR period.

will send out a CfC on proceeding to PR.

On track.

janina: Discussing a new time for the PAUR calls

We need a WBS circulated.

<MichaelC> Payments telecon scheduling WBS

TPAC 2016 Planning

janina: continued call for candidate agenda items.
... need to start connecting with other groups to coordinate. CSS among others.

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8


<trackbot> action-2068 -- John Foliot to Follow up on eme comments from before https://www.w3.org/tr/encrypted-media/ encrypted media extensions -- due 2016-07-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2068


<trackbot> action-2067 -- Janina Sajka to Draft comment on https://www.w3.org/tr/css-color-4/ css color module level 4 requesting a11y impacts section particularly with transparency and impacts on color contrast measurement -- due 2016-07-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2067


<trackbot> action-2066 -- John Foliot to Take need for techniques to measure color contrast with alpha layer to wcag wg related to https://www.w3.org/tr/css-color-4/ css color module level 4 -- due 2016-07-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2066


<trackbot> action-2063 -- Janina Sajka to Review internationalization best practices for spec developers https://www.w3.org/tr/international-specs/ -- due 2016-07-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2063


<trackbot> action-2053 -- Shane McCarron to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn/ web authentication: a web api for accessing scoped credentials -- due 2016-07-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2053

<MichaelC> action-2053 due 1 week

<trackbot> Set action-2053 Review https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn/ web authentication: a web api for accessing scoped credentials due date to 2016-07-27.

janina: brief discussion about Cyns coordinating with Mikael about CSS stuff. Janina will send it a pointer.

new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

<MichaelC> Clear Site Data

no need to check that

<MichaelC> Pointer Events - Level 2

MichaelC: we will need to review this

LJWatson: I can take that one

<MichaelC> ACTION: Léonie to review http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/ Pointer Events - Level 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2072 - Review http://www.w3.org/tr/pointerevents2/ pointer events - level 2 [on Léonie Watson - due 2016-07-27].

<MichaelC> Proximity Sensor

no need to review this item.

<MichaelC> Remote Playback API

<MichaelC> ACTION: Janina to review http://www.w3.org/TR/remote-playback/ Remote Playback API - due 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2073 - Review http://www.w3.org/tr/remote-playback/ remote playback api [on Janina Sajka - due 2016-08-03].

Need to review this. Janina does the media stuff usually

Decision Policy Review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jul/0026.html

janina: talked about our procedures
... we ask people who are reviewing to post their comments to the list so that others can track our reviews and we can make progress via list.

<MichaelC> action-2072: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Pointer_Events_-_Level_2

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2072 Review http://www.w3.org/tr/pointerevents2/ pointer events - level 2.

janina: a strict interpretation of the CfC might make us feel overloaded if we go to CfC for every set of comments.

<MichaelC> action-2073: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Remote_Playback_API

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2073 Review http://www.w3.org/tr/remote-playback/ remote playback api.

janina: the notion is to require a CfC if we are commenting on some other spec on their normative language. NOt require if it is general advice like graphics that need alt or a text description.
... there's a difference between members commenting on other specs individually and speaking as the APA with working group approval.

Gottfried: the proposal is great. I like to have as few rules as possible and to be able to quickly react
... just not sure about the three criteria

Is it an "and" connection between the criteria?

janina: yes - and. all three must be true.

MichaelC: it needs a clarification then.

Gottfried: the third one is somewhat unclear then. who knows if there would be a substantive disagreement in APA?
... that's hard to guess.

janina: that's a good point
... it could be chair decision. But any member could ask to go to a CfC.

Gottfried: that's similar to a CfC now.
... in that case the first two criteria are enough. Drop the third criteria as it is subjective.

LJWatson: it is easy to say if it is best practice.... but I am not sure that everyone is up to speed on best practices.
... there was a case recently where we discussed an SVG alternative text technique. It seemed controversial.
... I am wary of whether we can really define what best practices are. We need to protect the working group too. If we are not formally resolving to say something, we are subject to exposure.

fesch: if you ask them to add an a11y section, does tha trequire a CfC.
... and if we get very formal, is it going to further delay the ability to respond.
... groups seem to want feedback quickly.

janina: this is something that is a problem across the board. Hope to address horizontal review at TPAC.
... dont know the answer to the A11Y question.

Cyns: if we have CfCs, we should just do them for everything. That will reduce arguments.

<LJWatson> +1 to Cynthia on keeping it simple.

Cyns: we could say at the end of a call that we could just have one CfC about discussions that happened during a call.
... horizontal review stuff is going to help address it I hope - in terms to guidelines.

janina: michael is working on a doc for a11y checklist.

Cyns: we wouldn't need a CfC to send that out to every group.

<LJWatson> Q{

janina: I think once that document exists it would be part of every charter.

Cyns: I would hope so with any horizontal review. But who knows.

<LJWatson> + to suggest converting the spec a11y guidelines into a questionnaire for people to complete on request of a review.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note we can take weeks to respond to things, and even generous time allowances get stretched and to say we wouldn´t CfC null-ups and to say issues with

janina: I am hearing some support for CfC on everything,.

MichaelC: we ran into problems with aggregated CfCs in ARIA. We could go to individual CfCs but there could be a lot of them.
... I dont think we need CFCs on no action decisions. Anyone can ask to bring somethign back up.
... It can take us weeks to react to simple requests.
... it is hurting us. If we can find a way to not tack a week on that would be good.

<Zakim> LJWatson, you wanted to suggest converting the spec a11y guidelines into a questionnaire for people to complete on request of a review.

LJWatson: some groups when they are go do a review they ask the owners of the specs to do a questionairre. Ask the groups to just complete this.

janina: I think it will be a challenge to get that checklist produced before the charter expires.

MichaelC: challenge as in difficult?

janina: yes

Cyns: I have a little time between now and TPAC.

<Zakim> fesch, you wanted to ask will having lots of CfC pollute the apa-admin list, making it hard to find important decisions

<scribe> ACTION: CynS to draft up something about an a11y questionnaire before TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2074 - Draft up something about an a11y questionnaire before tpac [on Cynthia Shelly - due 2016-07-27].

<MichaelC> Drafts of Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines and checklist

fesch: Concern about polluting the admin list

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if we cant have someone else do that document

Cyns: Is there any way to make a use of surveys??

janina: that constitutes a CfC. The problem is getting the language together.

Cyns: I was thinking of a tool in conjunction with a Wiki to do something pre-call for consensus.

MichaelC: There is a lot of overhead when most of our comments are just blessed.

Cyns: More or less overhead than a CfC?

MichaelC: I think it is more work. Doesn't mean I dont think it is a good idea.

<Zakim> fesch, you wanted to ask will the CfC have the proposed feedback - no matter how much or how little feedback was made on list?

fesch: what is there is a big thread? is the CfC containing the full feedback?

janina: It needs to have the feedback. That's not the problem. We get notes that are suitable for discussion. But then we need to do turn it into formal feedback.
... maybe the tweak we want to consider is that the action person also writes up the formal feedback?

fesch: you might get fewefr vol;unteers in that case.

MichaelC: yeah... and fesch is our most prolifric volunteer saying that. It would mean MichaelC and janina would end up wriuting up all the comments.

fesch: If there is a CfC then someone (janina) has to write up the formal comments.

ShaneM: I agree.... if the purpose of this is to make the ApA comments look good and formal, then we need the formalizsm

LJWatson: do we need a CfC to decide if we need CfCs?

janina: sounds like most people are leaning toward CfCs and some can't live without them.

fesch: how many are controversial. what are we trying to guard against?

MichaelC: in principle we are guarding against the reviewing not having all the knowledge that is required.
... how much that comes up in practice I don't know. Almost never.

fesch: doesn't that come up in discssion of the actionj? You do it on list first. Discuss as an agenda item if there is a conflict.

LJWatson: there is also the need to adhere to the W3C process. We need to document the process.

MichaelC: I used to be the comment sender. When I did that I would always make it clear that it is a working group comment. Now since we don't have a resolution I can't really do that.

LJWatson: Also in the formal process if there were a probvlem with some spec we wouldn't be able to point back at our own processes to object to something moving forward. Rarely happens but we need the wherewithal.

janina: We have done that historically. The problem is when we try to deal with asynchronous comments. When I speak for the group I always try to point to where the resolution is logged.
... this would have been pushed sooner if there were more on list in addition to the telecons.
... maybe we need to ruminate on this rather than try to close it today.

fesch: I dont mind if you want to do this. I am one of the people who is opposed to slowing things down when there is not much benefit.

janina: I am not sure what the benefit is since there is so little asyn participation.
... our telecon discussions are very useful in informing what the comments are.

fesch: I agree

janina: I guess maybe that reflects me. I get impatient with emails that quote quotes and attempting to untangle that
... I can see the necessity in an ARIA situation where it is a technical debate and inventing new things. I don't think we (APA) are like that. I think this decision policy comes from an era where ARIA was part of PF and we needed the formalism.
... .also comes from HTML A11Y back in the day.

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to make a proposal

ShaneM: PROPOSAL: Do CfCs for everything for six months and the reevaluate based upon feedback.

MichaelC: where feedback includes the spec proceeding to the next step without our feedback being complete.

Cyns: What about 48hour CFCs?

janina: Yeah we have discussed that. Ours have been 7 day because there is no hurry usually. There have been times we have done short ones.

Cyns: It gives us flexibility.

fesch: are we looking for +1s or objections?

janina: objections

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask Can it go out in the absense of a meeting?

ShaneM: Can we start a CfC without having a meeting?

janina: in theory but often the discussion changes the content.

ShaneM: sure... but we could cut some time off

Cyns: If we could do it ahead of time then it could speed things up.

fesch: what would be the point of having an agenda item in the meeting? If we are producing 10 CFCs a week people are not going to pay attention

LJWatson: are we really reviewing 10 specs a week?
... I dont think there will be more than 2 or 3.

Cyns: THere are weeks with 0 and weeks with three or four.

MichaelC: most of our spec reviews result in no comment.

fesch: how do you tell a CfC about something that has been discussed in a meeting vs. one that has not been?

Cyns: Put a sentence in an email?

fesch: are we going to do tha tevewrytime?

MichaelC: CfCs are not meant to distinguish about the provenance of the comment.

janina: This wont help people whoa re not tracking our minutes much.

fesch: what about specs that are reviewed by m,ultipole people
... right now that gets coordinated in a meeting.

LJWatson: Yep. And then when things get sorted out in a meeting we need formal comments to come out of that and havfe a CfC

janina: lets stew on this for another week.

rssagent, make minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: CynS to draft up something about an a11y questionnaire before TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Janina to review http://www.w3.org/TR/remote-playback/ Remote Playback API - due 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Léonie to review http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/ Pointer Events - Level 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/07/20 17:02:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: ShaneM
Inferring ScribeNick: ShaneM
Present: Janina Joanmarie_Diggs LJWatson ShaneM fesch MichaelC Cyns Gottfried
Found Date: 20 Jul 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apa-minutes.html
People with action items: cyns janina l onie

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]