Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

18 Jan 2017

See also: IRC log


MichielBijl, Joanmarie_Diggs, Janina, MichaelC, JF, tdrake, ShaneM
Gottfried, John_Northrup, Leonie
MichielBijl, JF


<MichielBijl> scribe: MichielBijl

preview agenda with items from two minutes

JS: Any additions to agenda?
... Any news for the good of the order?

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


<trackbot> action-2017 -- Fred Esch to Review activitypub https://www.w3.org/tr/activitypub/ -- due 2016-03-16 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2017

MC: remember we reviewed something a while back

<MichaelC> action-2107 due 1 week

<trackbot> Set action-2107 Review https://www.w3.org/tr/webcryptoapi/ web cryptography api due date to 2017-01-25.

JS: Nothing like web cryptography in APA


<trackbot> action-2104 -- Michiel Bijl to Review aria in html http://www.w3.org/tr/html-aria/ -- due 2017-01-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2104

<JF> MB: no apparent conflicts with the ARIA spec, but noted some issues with HTML spec

<MichaelC> close action-2104

<trackbot> Closed action-2104.

<JF> Consulted with Steve Faulkner, recommends to file issues agaisnt HTML spec

<JF> WAs mis-matches between roles defined


<trackbot> action-2095 -- Jason White to Review web authentication https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn/ -- due 2017-01-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2095

MC: will mark wiki as complete

JS: taken up by RTQF

MC: Don’t have a category for nor-abandoned nor-complete

JS: We could

<MichaelC> action-2095 due 1 year

<trackbot> Set action-2095 Review web authentication https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn/ due date to 2018-01-18.

MC: Will say “defer action”


<trackbot> action-2094 -- Janina Sajka to Review tv control api specification https://www.w3.org/tr/tvcontrol-api/ -- due 2017-01-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2094

JS: Still working on it
... leave over due


<trackbot> action-2052 -- Shane McCarron to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/shadow-dom/ shadow dom -- due 2016-09-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2052

SM: didn’t do it

MC: Was published again on TR this week

JS: All DOM specs are open for updating

SM: Please leave it open, will contact Rich

<MichaelC> action-2052 due 2 weeks

<trackbot> Set action-2052 Review https://www.w3.org/tr/shadow-dom/ shadow dom due date to 2017-02-01.

SM: Set for two weeks from now, will have update by then


<trackbot> action-2086 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to Review https://www.w3.org/tr/input-events/ input events -- due 2016-09-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2086

JS: Wanted to talk to Léonie about that
... Might want to bring them to Web Platforms


<trackbot> action-2062 -- Lisa Seeman to Re-review custom counter styles https://www.w3.org/tr/predefined-counter-styles/ -- due 2016-07-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2062

MC: We didn’t reassign the action

TD: ??

JS: Re-assign and give a couple of weeks

MC: In July we said no further review needed, but never closed.
... Will re-assign to Ted with two weeks to go
... That’s it for action

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

MC: There seem to be no new publications of interest
... There’re four specs with explicit review requests

JS: Bunch of webpayments right?

MC: Yeah, three

SM: I’ve looked at it, nothing to do for us there

<MichaelC> action-2100?

<trackbot> action-2100 -- Shane McCarron to Review pubsub https://www.w3.org/tr/pubsub/ -- due 2017-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2100

MC: Also have a category for specs that are assigned but haven’t returned anything

JS: At some point we need to look at community groups

MC: Done with TR

Media Accessibility in W3C Specs

JS: Ralph Swick?? will join us next week
... We have a MAUR document to help us
... We’ve been able to specify a whole lot of things via user requirements
... We need to find a way that it gets appropriately address
... Which comments need to go to who
... MAUR is a long read, would be nice to have a one and half page summary.
... John is working on ??

<ShaneM> I thought the checklist was updated right before the MAUR was published.... I sort of remember doing it

JF: There is a disconnect between the MAUR and the checklist
... Rebuilding reqs into a checklist
... Would like feedback
... Cross ref to WCAG 2.0
... Something are infered through WCAG
... Not explicitly called out
... Some of that feedback needs to be fed back to WCAG WG.
... Think we need to add note not necessarily normative
... Open to any suggestions to things we need to track
... It’s now hosted in the Wiki, is there somewhere else, more static, where we can host this?

MC: We can come up with a place
... If appropriate, we can take it to note track, mixed feeling about that, but we can solve it

JF: At some point we want to get it out of the W3 wiki
... Not overly fussy where

JS: MAUR has a reference to it, so would have to edit that

JF: Updating a link is not a problem
... Let me do the hard work and we’ll figure out the paper work later

JS: Should consider if there is enough new information to update the MAUR
... Think we have a couple of small comments, maybe push to 1.2

MC: While there is bureaucracy for updating notes, not as bad as RECs

JF: The other thing, some of the author requirements have nothing to do with APIs
... There are some other requirements as well

JS: Should be made into best practices

JF: Or advance to WCAG

JS: If that’s the case I don’t care too much about which version.
... Would be interested in POCs

JF: Someone from BBC showed me some stuff

JS: Would like to do that
... If you have time before next meeting that’d be good

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note there are also some author requirements that have nothing to do with APIs

Action-2104 ARIA in HTML -- Michiel Bijl http://www.w3.org/tr/html-aria/

<JF> scribe: JF

MB: have done a review

no real issues except for one item - a legacy issue

there are a number of elements that are not currently iin alpha-order

there is one issue however that is the section element

<MichielBijl> https://github.com/w3c/html-aria/issues/64

according to ARIA in HTML, it maps to region, but according to APG it has extra properties

<MichielBijl> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/239

so there is a need for an update

there are a number of differences between what is allowed in different documents

Steve F. has requested that these differences be filed as bugs

JS: a good list of items to follow up on
... suspect that the ARIA group would be interested inthis as well, especially the discrepancies apparent
... our wiki should have, at a minimum, pointers of what happened and a paper-trail back to github issues

MB: hae a markdown file of issues noted, can be added to anywhere

JS: can send it tomailing list

MB: yes, can do that
... has 3 categories of issues: ARIA in HTML issues, HTML issues, and one APG issue

most issues are the descrepencies

MB: so question is, where should post the issues?

JB: definately on the ARIA list

<scribe> ACTION: Michiel to file issues, send out email to both lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-apa-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2109 - File issues, send out email to both lists [on Michiel Bijl - due 2017-01-25].

<MichaelC> associate action-2109 with product-8

<trackbot> action-2109 (File issues, send out email to both lists) associated with product-8.

<MichaelC> action-2109?

<trackbot> action-2109 -- Michiel Bijl to File issues, send out email to both lists -- due 2017-01-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2109

APA's Accessibility Checklist

<MichielBijl> MC: No news since last week

<MichaelC> Draft WTAG Checklist

<MichielBijl> MC: I tried to make the checklist somewhat complete

<MichielBijl> MC: It references relevant guidelines

<MichielBijl> MC: I think the wording of these checklist items needs to be done

<MichielBijl> MC: Were drafted so we would understand

<MichielBijl> MC: A) Do we have the right sections

<MichielBijl> MC: B) Are the checklist items appropriate for that section

<MichielBijl> MC: Can send comments to the list

<MichielBijl> MC: Can send PRs, but might be a little early for that

<MichielBijl> MC: Might do restructure in coming weeks

<MichielBijl> MC: Ralph wants this in April

<MichielBijl> MC: Not sure yet when we want to publish final version

<MichielBijl> MC: Over next month we’ll try to answer all those questions

<MichielBijl> MC: Publish in APA rep or TR

<MichielBijl> MC: These checklist items are just CSS

<MichielBijl> MC: Would like to put in actual form

<MichielBijl> MC: Would be able to submit and get a list of things you need to look at

<MichielBijl> JF: I see there are some gaps

<MichielBijl> JF: Under the explanation column

<MichielBijl> JF: Do you need help?

<MichielBijl> MC: Yes!

<MichielBijl> MC: Would be greatly appreciated

<MichielBijl> MC: If people can offer content, that would be great

<MichielBijl> MC: In short term e-mail is fine

<MichielBijl> JF: Looking at media stuff here

<MichielBijl> JF: Working on MAUR anyway, seems trivial to feed that to checklist

<MichielBijl> MC: Did attempt to link to MAUR

<MichielBijl> MC: Will fix contrast issue soon

<MichielBijl> JF: target audience is other WGs?

<MichielBijl> MC: primary target audience yes

<MichielBijl> JS: Think we need to put on media hats

<MichielBijl> Whatever different viewpoints we have

<MichielBijl> Michael just noted that indeed you need to be able to send out to different devices

<MichielBijl> MC: That’s the sort of stuff I want people to catch in their review

<MichielBijl> Might be useful to look at overall web accessibility technology guidelines

<MichaelC> Draft WTAG

<MichielBijl> Nearly 2 year old draft at this point

<MichielBijl> Went through it with PFWG at some point

<MichielBijl> JS: plenty of work left!

<MichielBijl> Any other comments or questions?

<MichielBijl> We’re at the hour

<MichielBijl> We’ll discuss input events when Léonie is here, we had some comments from Rich.

<MichielBijl> Thanks all!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Michiel to file issues, send out email to both lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-apa-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/01/18 18:02:31 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/WP/Web Platforms/
Succeeded: s/ted/Ted/
Succeeded: s/compelte/complete/
Succeeded: s/audiance/audience/
Found Scribe: MichielBijl
Inferring ScribeNick: MichielBijl
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Scribes: MichielBijl, JF
ScribeNicks: MichielBijl, JF
Present: MichielBijl Joanmarie_Diggs Janina MichaelC JF tdrake ShaneM
Regrets: Gottfried John_Northrup Leonie

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 18 Jan 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-apa-minutes.html
People with action items: michiel

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]