Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

21 Jun 2017

See also: IRC log


janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, tdrake, MichaelC
Leonie, John


preview agenda with items from two minutes

Janina: There may be low attendance today, we will get through what we can.

Any News?

TPAC 2017 https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2017

Janina: The TPAC schedule is out.

MichaelC: APA is the beginning of the week.

Joanie: Dpub meeting, will this be a conflict with ARIA? Should we switch?

Janina: we could swap dates if needed. There's more ARIA than APA.

MichaelC: we need to keep in mind, some individuals will only attend the start or end of the week, not the complete week.

Janina: APA and ARIA would be interested in DPUB and CSS joint meetings. These are early in the week.

Joanie: could we use APA time for some of these joint meetings?

Janina: Michael announced that rooms are going fast. Make your rooms right away.

Task Force Checkins

Janina: Ted needs to step back from facilitating the CSS Group. An email was sent earlier.

We were already looking at finding a co-facilitator.

Ted: I would feel comfortable taking a back seat position if another facilitator was able to take the lead.

MichaelC: I'm working on a draft message.

Janina: COGA - The ARIA module is out for comments. We haven't gotten any.

Michael: Lisa and I worked on WCAG editorial notes for acceptance on a wider review.

Janina: Web Authentication has a new chair

John Fontana (Yubico)

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

<MichaelC> action-2131?

<trackbot> action-2131 -- Michael Cooper to Ask webappsec if csp is meant to block bookmarklets, and raise issue of a11y scripts that users explicitly request (not xss) -- due 2017-05-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2131

<MichaelC> action-2130?

<trackbot> action-2130 -- Janina Sajka to Review overview of the coveragejson format https://www.w3.org/tr/covjson-overview/ -- due 2017-06-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2130

<MichaelC> action-2124

<trackbot> action-2124 -- Janina Sajka to Follow up with johannes wilm on input events 1 and 2 wrt our comments on input events non-leveled -- due 2017-05-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2124

<MichaelC> close action-2105

<trackbot> Closed action-2105.

reviews have been completed and this can be closed.

<MichaelC> action-2128

<trackbot> action-2128 -- John Foliot to Review web publications for the open web platform: vision and technical challenges https://www.w3.org/tr/pwp/ -- due 2017-05-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2128

John set it to pending, but there's no pointer in the action to the comments.

<MichaelC> action-2128: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017Jun/0001.html

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2128 Review web publications for the open web platform: vision and technical challenges https://www.w3.org/tr/pwp/.

This action has the comments

Alt text needed for images.

Coordinate personalization semantics.

spelling, grammar

Michael: i would move towards accepting comments as individual from John. We could adopt the resolution to coordinate as a whole.

janina: could we close this?

Michael: we should keep it open until the comments are sent.

<MichaelC> action-2129

<trackbot> action-2129 -- Michael Cooper to Find publications that went straight to note without review opportunity -- due 2017-05-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2129

Michael: I sent an email to the list for notes that went to note without working draft. More than half followed this pattern and it seems to be getting more common.

This is appropriate for some notes.

Some notes are published because a working group is closing or abandoning work. There should be practices to make this more transparent.

Some notes stated the note was being published with the intention of being updated. These should have been working drafts.

Some notes had specification language and these may be specifications in disguise. This is problematic for the process.

I am going to send my thoughts to the architecture team.

The TAG is a formal group with a formal role.

If I could say the APA has contributed to this thought, it would be helpful. Rather than the thoughts are mine alone.

Janina: we need the categorization comments. I need to send a pre-CFCC message to find out if anyone has concerns, questions, comments.

The process that allows this to happen is the problem.

michael: I would like to see the process spell out when notes should/must go into working draft before publishing. There may be pushback on this proposal.

This adds process. The attractiveness of notes is they don't require these stages.

janina: if this is being abused, this is diminishing the W3C brand and it should be protected.

Joanie: I have mixed feelings. With my accessibility hat on, this should be done. It's the balance of ensuring accessibility within all W3C documents vs. potentially alienating people who could be making an impact towards the greater whole (i.e. employment)

The checklist is great, but it is also long and some may see it as a barrier.

Janina: some notes were perfectly acceptable, others were questionable. It's not always accessibility. It could be localization, security...

Are we abusing the process because it is so easy to go to a note.

Can we write guidelines for the process that makes it easier to know when it is appropriate to go to publication without a working draft.

MichaelC: The point is to get this feedback before going to an open forum. I could do this first and discuss the feedback.

It could be that we are asking for more than the W3C process was meant to provide.

Janina: you prefer to work team side and APA should postpone an action?

Michael: Teamside discussion is my next step and APA can decide if there is an action to be completed.

TPAC is the target goal.

I would like input on the checklist. It was structured with categories. The categories can be skipped if they are not appropriate to reduce the burden.

It's not a required thing, but a recommended thing to improve due dilligence.

The goal is to lessen the burden, not increase it.

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

<MichaelC> CSS Overflow Module Level 4

his module contains the features of CSS relating to new mechanisms of overflow handling in visual media (e.g., screen or paper). In interactive media, it describes features that allow the overflow from a fixed size container to be handled by pagination (displaying one page at a time). It also describes features, applying to all visual media, that allow the contents of an element to be spread across multiple fragments, allowing the contents to flow across multi[CUT]

Janina: this could be useful for low vision users.

tdrake: cognitive accessibility may be an issue when pagination is not obvious.

Michael: There should be a feature to disable overflow within a user style sheet or personalization setting

low vision, cognitive?, publishing

mark as deferred

come back when it is matured

<MichaelC> ACTION: cooper to ping review of CSS Overflow Module Level 4 - due 6 months [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/21-apa-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2134 - Ping review of css overflow module level 4 [on Michael Cooper - due 2017-12-21].

<MichaelC> FindText API

This was a killed off spec. But we determined it needs to be reviewed and now it is retired.

<MichaelC> Personalization Semantics 1.0

Do we want to track personalization as APA?

Janina: we probably should, but we may not need an independent review. DPUB needs to see if it meets their needs

We announced the publshing and haven't received any comments

<MichaelC> Cloud Browser Architecture

A Cloud Browser is a browser running and executing on a server. This document describes the concepts and architecture for the Cloud Browser. The main purpose is to provide the building blocks for a Cloud Browser solution.

The cloud browser and web tv groups are exploring.

janina: we want to track web tv.

michael: we haven't looked at this space in the past.

Janina: i need an action to review

<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review Cloud Browser use cases https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases - due 1 month [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/21-apa-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2135 - Review cloud browser use cases https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/main_page/cloud_browser_tf/usecases [on Janina Sajka - due 2017-07-21].

Michael: There are some other specs we could go through quickly.

Shackle for JS.

<MichaelC> Vehicle Information API Specification

vehicle information api specification:

janina: this is still too low level for us. It's oil, tire pressure, etc.

Michael: it's describing the API. It's not clear in the preamble if there are complementary spec

Vehicle data is the complementary spec.

it went to working draft in january 2016. But we don't have it in our wiki tracking

Vehicle Data has the information about dashboard and interfaces.

Janina: it's worth putting in a comment and reviewing Vehicle Data. Give me an action

<MichaelC> Verifiable Claims Use Cases

MichaelC: Verifiable claims use cases. This is a working draft note.

A verifiable claim is a qualification, achievement, quality, or piece of information about an entity's background such as a name, government ID, payment provider, home address, or university degree. Such a claim describes a quality or qualities, property or properties of an entity which establish its existence and uniqueness. The use cases outlined here are provided in order to make progress toward possible future standardization and interoperability of both l[CUT]

Payments are a use case, finance, health care, and there are user tasks.

tdrake: VC provides privacy protection and could be useful for accessibility when a person needs to protect their health history.

Janina: let's bring up this topic when payments and VC is renewed.

tdrake: I think we should embrace VC, but I don't know where we need to review it.

Michael: This is not specific to disabilities. All people will want the same level of privacy and control.

Privacy is not in our area, but disclosure control can be.

shagent, make minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: cooper to ping review of CSS Overflow Module Level 4 - due 6 months [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/21-apa-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: janina to review Cloud Browser use cases https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases - due 1 month [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/21-apa-minutes.html#action02]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/06/21 17:06:23 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Default Present: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, tdrake, MichaelC
Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs tdrake MichaelC
Regrets: Leonie John
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: tdrake
Inferring Scribes: tdrake
Found Date: 21 Jun 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/06/21-apa-minutes.html
People with action items: cooper janina

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]