See also: IRC log
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
next meeting is 7 June 2017
<Judy> scribe: Judy
MC: similar to last time --
personalization -- as soon as possible
... cogn accessibility & user research, they needs more
time.
... null delta for WCAG 2.1
... digipub accessiiblity accessibility api mappings, upcoming
next, need to trigger ralph and plh to re-review it,
... got ralph's advice...
jb: personalization pending for how long?
mc: a while. it references user
research and gap analysis
... joanmarie recommended decoupling them
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note that registration is not open
mc: registration is not open
we don´t even know what days of the week which groups will meet
jb: they want info about travel concerns
mc: people are making hotel reservations
though it took weeks to provide the info needed to do so
only know one person intending not to go because of location
a few others are maybes
gk: planning to go
jb: MC did you ask planners for info?
mc: several times, expect they hate me
jb: was expectation that registration would be open by now?
mc: no
awk: have some SC finalizing their way through the pipe
none made it for the May publication but expect to have a few for June
jb: are you worried people will misunderstand why May pub didn´t happen?
awk: possible to misinterpret
jb: cleanup lots harder than proactive statement
awk: can update timeline
mc: and status wiki
awk: those are the same
jb: what about silver?
mc: information on Silver TF wiki
seems to be pretty current
they are on track at the moment
planning a draft prototype in time for next year´s CSUN
<AWK> +AWK
jb: where is that info for Mobile?
kw: mostly we´d point people to the related GitHub issues
jb: what about general info?
<AWK> (WCAG 2.1 timeline updated at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline)
should update pages with old status ifno
and improve discoverability of status info
for many of the groups and tfs
ts: we do summaries of our meetings, not just minutes
which is really helpful
and really time consuming
gk: the time impact on one person saves time on other people
ts: but someone´s gotta do it
jb: APA published self review checklist
http://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/checklist
hope this helps orients groups to potential issues
and kick-start issue identification
<Judy> scribe: Judy
MC: no comments on this yet. but,
not sure that it's been announced and promoted yet.
... I talked with Ralph about the same questions.
... I wondered whether we need a similar presentation as
Richard Ishida did for I18n.
... maybe brainstorm with I18n folks also.
... also wanted to explictly engage some of the staff contacts
that we interact with frequently, and walk through.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
jb: why not do to chairs as well?
mc: we were talking about existing Team channels
also discussing with Janina doing a TPAC topic about horizontal review
jb: that´s a ways off, think of how to engage
sooner
also, will people in CGs see this?
mc: can discuss with Ralph
don´t know what mechanism we have to draw CG attention
jb: +Coralie who does something with community group council
<George> WAI welcome wagon.
js: put a copy of the checklist on a CG page when the group is created
<Judy> +1 George...
jb: maybe make available in different places?
js: it´s new, we don´t even know how thorough and accurate it is
as we gain experience, we can be more comfortable pushing it
we hope it will structure ongoing communication
jb: sees joanie wonders if it could be added to the transition-to-cr process? (after much bikeshedding)
ts: think horizontal review shouldn´t be ¨review¨ but just incorporated procedures
<joanie> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/Process-20161109#candidate-rec
mc: I18N have ability to take their checklist and turn into a GH issue where you can check away on checkboxes
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to oppose multiple copies, but to note I18N approach
jb: horizontal review expected to be dealt with by the time of ¨wide review¨
which is a prerequisite for CR transition
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter.html#horizontal-review
this has been there a few years, but groups not taking up consistently
MC should follow up
https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#TL.3BDR:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-announce/
mc: DocumentReview page has the info, and PLH is increasingly pushing that those steps have been done
and reviews are more frequently announced on public-review-announce
though in both cases, sometimes with too light a hand or not much real lead time
is the 2 implementations requirement addressed for a11y?
jb: no explicit requirement that one implementation get tested for accessibility, but there every feature of a spec including any specific accessibility features, must be directly tested.
this came up notably in EME recently
there were a11y-impacting features that hadn´t been tested
we eventually found out a11y wasn´t being destroyed
but it hadn´t been tested
mc: EME testing was just insufficient testing, and it´s easy to overlook that
AAMs are part of our strategy for pushing more a11y testing
<Judy> [jb: disagrees that EME testing was just insufficient testing; but at this point, it has been covered]
also APA trying to push accessibility impacts sections which call out which features have a11y impacts
which would then indicate testing need
jb: suggest APA collect data on completeness / usefulness of FAST checklist
ask some groups to use it and give feedback
so you feel more confident, so we can be comfortable to promote it, so there´s less review burden later
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say EME testing was just insufficient testing, and it´s easy to overlook that and to see AAMs are part of our strategy for pushing more a11y testing
jb: APA needs to review specs
which requires a team of people with diverse skills
over time there is attrition, so need to rotate new people in
what technologies need to review in next 3 - 6 months?
https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Technologies
mc: CSS, HTML, Web Payments, Web of Things, Security
jb: who do you know good in those areas?
ts: some PDFa people may be interested in security in a11y
<George> What about people who are at universities that are getting involved with accessibility?
jb: urgent priorities for DPub A11Y?
jb: SVG moving along again
mc: note they propose moving ARIA deliverables out of their group
jd: ARIA chairs willing to accept this
<Judy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-cc/2017May/0009.html
https://github.com/w3c/strategy/milestone/1
mc: charters needing review in above link
WebVR likely a11y interest
Dom was proactive in engaging us
need to close the loop
<Judy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-cc/2017May/0010.html
mc: ^not on our radar afaict
jb: anything?
gk: In discussion with IMS we were noting that now that use of text to speech is increasing more beyond the blindness community, we're finding less tolerance of mispronunciations. We believe there's a need for better standardization of read-aloud pronunciation, and that W3C WAI might be suited for that. What do you think.
jb: Sounds relevant for the "Strategy Funnel". Can you send follow up to wai-cc
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/no explicit requirement/no explicit requirement that one implementation get tested for accessibility, but there every feature of a spec including any specific accessibility features, must be directly tested./ Succeeded: s/jb: urgent priorities for DPub A11Y?// Succeeded: s/something big that the scribe didn´t capture/In discussion with IMS we were noting that now that use of text to speech is increasing more beyond the blindness community, we're finding less tolerance of mispronunciations. We believe there's a need for better standardization of read-aloud pronunciation, and that W3C WAI might be suited for that. What do you think./ Succeeded: s/can you send/Sounds relevant for the "Strategy Funnel". Can you send/ Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Default Present: MichaelC, Joanmarie_Diggs, Judy, janina, tzviya, George, AWK Present: MichaelC Joanmarie_Diggs Judy janina tzviya George AWK Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Scribes: MichaelC, Judy ScribeNicks: MichaelC, Judy Got date from IRC log name: 24 May 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/24-waicc-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]