16:40:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:40:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-aria-irc
16:40:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:40:42 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #aria
16:40:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:40:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:40:45 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
16:40:45 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2017
16:40:52 <joanie> RRSAgent, make log public
16:40:52 <joanie> agenda?
16:41:13 <joanie> agenda: this
16:41:13 <joanie> agenda+ Creating a subgroup of ARIA WG to work on Personalization
16:41:13 <joanie> agenda+ Marking anything as at-risk? (final decision needed)
16:41:13 <joanie> agenda+ Conclusions regarding aria-errormessage
16:41:14 <joanie> agenda+ Conclusions regarding aria-roledescription
16:41:15 <joanie> agenda+ Conclusions regarding exiting and re-entering CR
16:41:18 <joanie> agenda+ ARIA 1.1 "actions / status" check in
16:41:20 <joanie> agenda: be done
16:41:29 <joanie> agenda?
16:41:45 <joanie> scribeOptions: -final
16:41:56 <Rich> Rich has joined #aria
16:56:23 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
16:57:55 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #aria
16:59:28 <janina> present+
16:59:32 <tzviya> present+
16:59:35 <Rich> present+Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:59:47 <Rich> present+ Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:01:34 <MichielBijl> present+
17:02:08 <jkva> present+
17:02:11 <lisa> lisa has joined #aria
17:02:19 <MichaelC> present+
17:03:06 <tzviya> scribenick: tzviya
17:03:32 <tzviya> zakim take up next item
17:03:42 <tzviya> zakim, take up next item
17:03:42 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Creating a subgroup of ARIA WG to work on Personalization" taken up [from joanie]
17:04:21 <tzviya> MC: We talked last week about creating a TF for personalization semantics
17:04:28 <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/task-forces/personalization/work-statement
17:04:39 <tzviya> ...I have in my queue a few edits to my work statements
17:04:53 <tzviya> MC: My edits are meant to talk about user context
17:05:18 <tzviya> ...In discussion with WAI CC, we identified some pieces of personalization puzzle
17:05:37 <lisa> looks good michael
17:05:40 <mck> mck has joined #aria
17:05:46 <tzviya> ...COGA is part of it, but there is more, such as CSS. This TF would be the best forum for coordination
17:05:58 <mck> present+ matt_king
17:06:49 <tzviya> lisa: Statement looks good. Scope for all disabilities, but personalization for all use cases is probably part of that as well.
17:07:39 <tzviya> JD: What are next steps? PWG is definitely interested
17:08:01 <tzviya> RS: You mentioned that this is beyond scope of ARIA. Say more.
17:08:23 <tzviya> MC: This is out of scope of ARIA, but we are singularly focused on the topic
17:08:37 <tzviya> LS: It is important that we have someone from Publishing
17:09:01 <tzviya> MS: We don't need to recharter, but we are changing the name
17:09:25 <tzviya> JS: We may want to consider not using the word "ARIA" in the title, because it might not all be ARIA
17:09:34 <tzviya> s/MS/MC
17:09:43 <MichaelC> s/the name/the name of the deliverable from ¨User Context¨ to ¨Personalization Semantics¨/
17:10:55 <tzviya> MC: one of the things to clarify is that personalization semantics may be within aria or metadata. This may lead to work in other groups.
17:11:24 <tzviya> JS: Obvious example is experimenting with media queries to handle fonts, background color, etc
17:11:44 <tzviya> RS: There are features in CSS. I don't know where they ended up.
17:12:01 <tzviya> RS: Does anyone object to forming a TF?
17:12:27 <tzviya> ...Who will lead it? Who will participate?
17:12:48 <tzviya> LS: I will lead the task force.
17:13:35 <tzviya> TS: I will not join the TF from PWG, but Avneesh Singh will appoint someone from Publishing Accessibility TF to join
17:14:03 <tzviya> RS: Things are currently lumped under cognitive disabilities, but this reaches many more people.
17:14:34 <tzviya> ...Lisa and i presented a white paper about cognitive disabilities and the aging population.
17:15:13 <tzviya> MC: I think we should issue a call for participation
17:15:15 <tzviya> q+
17:15:18 <lisa> q+
17:15:56 <tzviya> ...We need to consider whether this is a joint TF or just ARIA.
17:16:14 <tzviya> JS: I think Judy wants this on the next WAICC call.
17:16:30 <tzviya> RS: We have a rec track deliverable.
17:17:24 <tzviya> RS: Do CGs have the same RF license?
17:17:43 <tzviya> MC: no, but they can prepare a document to present to WG and then do IP review
17:17:57 <tzviya> RS: I don't think we can do the CG now.
17:18:15 <tzviya> MC: We could do a CG for research  and coordinate with WG
17:19:44 <tzviya> TS: in Publishing WG, we have a CG for maintenance and incubation and WG for rec track documents
17:20:03 <tzviya> MC: What is scope of the work? Where do we want to address it?
17:20:36 <tzviya> MC: Do we agree that we need to work personalization in a larger context?
17:20:54 <tzviya> RS: I think we need to talk to larger world for user context
17:21:09 <Stefan> Stefan has joined #aria
17:21:15 <Stefan> present+
17:21:53 <MichielBijl> q+ to ask how we get developer buy in.
17:22:29 <lisa> q+
17:22:47 <joanie> q?
17:22:51 <tzviya> TS: From a publishing perspective, the assumption is that there will be the ability to adjust font size, bg color, etc
17:23:12 <tzviya> ...this is for people with disabilities as well as someone who just likes large fonts
17:23:38 <tzviya> LS: If we open this up like that, maybe it's not just about learning disabilities but learning styles as well
17:23:39 <tzviya> q-
17:23:52 <lisa> ack l
17:24:02 <tzviya> MC: my feeling is that we want to continue develop personalization semantic spec
17:24:18 <tzviya> ...We may want to explore user context as well - apart or together
17:24:47 <tzviya> ...BEcause we already have rec-track doc, we should move forward and coordinate with other groups as needed
17:25:02 <tzviya> ...have in mind that this might spin out into another entity
17:25:36 <tzviya> ...CG is obvious place to take over. Coordination group could be another option
17:25:58 <Rich> scribe: Rich
17:26:13 <joanie> q?
17:26:23 <Rich> q?
17:26:45 <Rich> Michiel: I was quite impressed about the personalization presentation at TPAC
17:27:03 <Rich> Michiel: How do we get developers interested in this?
17:27:18 <janina> q+ to say it's critical to use technology we can control, e.g. plugins
17:27:48 <Rich> scribe: Lisa
17:28:53 <lisa> rich: compliance was used for aria, but with the delay with 508 there is pushback. we should build the buisness case, inovation approuch
17:29:46 <lisa> Rich: aging , education market (including higher education) from knowbility smposium, inovation and inclusion is the big interest
17:30:06 <lisa> wcag.21 scedules are killers,
17:30:20 <lisa> so go for the opertunity and the complience
17:30:32 <lisa> not the compliance
17:30:57 <lisa> but we need to work out how to get out the message.
17:31:25 <lisa> MS is dealing with brouder includsion (such as the MS stuff)
17:32:14 <lisa> also think about things like alexia and bots
17:33:07 <lisa> Michael: also this can be an add on for wcag
17:33:20 <Rich> scribe: Rich
17:33:37 <Rich> Lisa: There is an add-on in the WCAG space.
17:34:04 <Rich> Lisa: We are trying to get something into 2.1 in either AA or AAA. But, what we are going to manage well is a supplement to WCAG
17:34:29 <Rich> Lisa: We can make it has usable to as many people with disabilities as is possible
17:34:34 <joanie> q?
17:34:43 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #aria
17:34:54 <Rich> Lisa: A deliverable of the task force should be the business case.
17:35:20 <Rich> Lisa: Synchronization with IMS and others would be well slotted
17:35:31 <MichielBijl> ack me
17:35:31 <Zakim> MichielBijl, you wanted to ask how we get developer buy in.
17:35:37 <Rich> Janina: I think it would be smart to look at a bird in the hand vs. more birds in the book.
17:35:39 <lisa> q+
17:35:43 <joanie> ack janina
17:35:43 <Zakim> janina, you wanted to say it's critical to use technology we can control, e.g. plugins
17:35:55 <Rich> Janina: Nothing in the US before 2020 and I think everyone knows why
17:36:17 <Rich> Janina: is doing here best to do thi via a Chrome plugin
17:36:44 <Rich> Janina: leveraging the immediate need by the community should be the first focus
17:36:55 <Rich> Janina: we should show viability via a plugin
17:37:04 <Rich> Janina: e.g. e-book readers
17:37:22 <Rich> Lisa: It seems to me we need the next step - a call for participation
17:37:55 <Rich> Lisa: then we can make as straw poll as to when people can make a call
17:38:10 <Rich> Lisa: We can reach out to digital publishing and Microsoft
17:38:25 <lisa> anytime Michiel :)
17:38:38 <Rich> janina: we already reached out to digital publishing but we should reach out via the WAI CC call.
17:38:50 <joanie> q+ To ask if we're blocking any CfC on WAI
17:39:04 <joanie> q-
17:39:42 <Rich> janina: I think I would follow through in WAI CC before the subgroup starts.
17:40:32 <lisa> q+
17:40:33 <Rich> michael: I know Judy wants a CC call but I want this on a predictable time frame
17:40:55 <Rich> Michael: We should refin the work statement and who is interested before the CC call.
17:41:04 <Rich> Michael: the CC call is in 2 weeks
17:41:30 <Rich> Michael: We should have a triage of features that require a real engineering effort
17:41:56 <Rich> Lisa: There are values I would add to.
17:42:18 <Rich> Michael: What happens in WCAG is a separate discussion.
17:42:43 <Rich> Michael: I doubt this will be recommended by WCAG 2.1
17:42:57 <Rich> s/this will be/this spec. will be/
17:43:27 <Rich> Lisa: We should kick off the task force next week.
17:43:54 <Rich> Michael: we should get more dpub involvement first
17:44:23 <Rich> Lisa: I agree let’s take a look at the work statement
17:46:08 <Rich> Rich: should we triage features before the task force starts?
17:46:21 <Rich> Janina: Let’s see who will join this?
17:47:13 <lisa> i will go on mute now
17:47:16 <lisa> :)
17:48:37 <joanie> Zakim, next item
17:48:37 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, joanie
17:48:42 <joanie> q?
17:48:46 <joanie> q- lisa
17:48:46 <Rich> scribe: Rich
17:48:49 <joanie> Zakim, next item
17:48:49 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Marking anything as at-risk? (final decision needed)" taken up [from joanie]
17:48:53 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/588
17:49:56 <Rich> Joanie: only aria-keyshortcuts and aria-details are at risk
17:50:41 <Rich> Joanie: we are not going to get a UIA implementation in time for CR
17:51:47 <Rich> Rich: I have no objections to aria-details and aria-keyshortcuts being at risk.
17:53:04 <Rich> Joanie: We can always move things to 1.2 if we don’t make these for CR
17:53:38 <Rich> Rich: we need to have 2 implementations
17:54:01 <Rich> michael: Apple could fail to object and also fail to implement so it is the same issue
17:54:42 <Rich> Michael: If Apple formally objects the director could force us to remove a feature
17:56:05 <Rich> Michael: We should not mark something at risk because an individual company might object
17:56:33 <Rich> Rich: Separate implementations on separate browsers
17:58:07 <Rich> Joanie: we have Chrome support for aria-details.
17:59:24 <Rich> Michael: I don’t think there is a point in worrying
18:00:18 <Rich> Joanie: we have aria-keyshortcuts support in Chrome as they wanted it.
18:00:39 <Rich> Rich: Chrome and Firefox are both IA2
18:02:46 <Rich> Joanie: we are testing implementability and collecting support.
18:03:04 <Rich> Rich: so nothing is at risk
18:03:42 <Rich> Rich: so far
18:04:21 <joanie> agenda?
18:04:42 <Rich> zakeim, takeup item 4
18:04:48 <Rich> zakim, takeup item 4
18:04:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'takeup item 4', Rich
18:05:05 <Rich> zakim, next item
18:05:05 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Conclusions regarding aria-errormessage" taken up [from joanie]
18:05:40 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/issue-500/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription
18:05:52 <Rich> joanie: I have proposed changes that must show up in the spec. I have buy-in from Google and Mozilla. They could wait until 1.2
18:06:26 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/issue-587/aria/aria.html#aria-errormessage
18:06:59 <Rich> joanie: just because the spec. does not have this as a requirement the implementation will be as described.
18:07:55 <Rich> Joanie: we have 2 implementations that reflect the changes to aria-erromessage
18:08:34 <Rich> joanie: this needs to be a change to the aria spec.
18:11:07 <Rich> michael: I don’t think it is critical to go back to CR for this.
18:12:46 <Rich> joanie: Apple and Google agree this needs to be in there
18:13:13 <Rich> Michael: postponing to 1.2 is something that others might do.
18:13:15 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/500
18:13:26 <mck> I have to leave for another meeting, but I do think issue 558 should be considered wrt the enter/exit CR decision.
18:13:28 <mck> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/558
18:13:29 <mck> We mmay be able to do the same approach; get functional implementations and then let the spec later catch up, but that should be an explicit decision.
18:13:46 <Rich> joanie: with respect to roledescription we trying to be restrictive but we went too far
18:13:51 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/issue-500/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription
18:14:37 <Rich> joanie: James made that suggestion. but needs to be more prescriptive
18:14:38 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/issue-500-jd/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription
18:14:59 <Rich> joanie: made a comment about using standard controls and others agreed at the last call
18:15:04 <joanie> User agents must not expose the aria-roledescription attribute if the value of aria-roledescription is empty or contains only whitespace characters.
18:15:12 <Rich> so I am making the “above” proposal
18:15:26 <joanie> User agents must expose the aria-roledescription attribute if a valid value is applied to a host language interactive control.
18:16:49 <Rich> Rich: how do you determine validity
18:17:30 <Rich> joanie: it is valid if it isn not empty or has only whitespace characters
18:17:48 <joanie> If aria-roledescription is applied to a host language container element, user agents must not expose aria-roledescription unless the author also defines an explicit WAI-ARIA role value, or the host language has explicitly identified the element as supporting aria-roledescription.
18:18:37 <Rich> joanie: James said he wants to be able to put a roledescription without a role attribute
18:19:20 <Rich> joanie: nobody can figure out a host language description of semantically meaninful
18:20:25 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/0c47c14
18:22:06 <joanie> 10313 is too restrictive. It puts a lot of extra work on the host language specs. E.g. this would be supported on role="main" but not <main> until HTML made a change... This would also not be supported on most SVG elements, where is may be most useful.
18:24:31 <Rich> Michael: you should post our comments and there was an unsuccessful effort to solicit a response the director would take that into account
18:25:27 <Rich> michael: the github issue provides enough documentation
18:28:34 <Rich> Michael: Are we going back into CR?
18:28:51 <Rich> Rich: put new roledescription language in but at risk
18:29:27 <Rich> joanie: branch or master
18:29:33 <Rich> joanie: ?
18:29:43 <Rich> michael: I would branch off of master
18:30:31 <Rich> joanie: should I put this in master knowing we will do a new CR from master
18:30:36 <Rich> Joanie: ?
18:30:58 <Rich> michael: we can put the feature at risk in the satus section
18:31:25 <Rich> michael: I will reference the status
18:31:58 <Rich> joanie: i will put the error message and the roledescription change in the branch
18:32:31 <Rich> RRSAgent, make log public
18:32:37 <Rich> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:32:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-aria-minutes.html Rich
18:32:42 <Rich> chair: Joanie
18:32:58 <joanie> chair Joanmarie_Diggs
18:33:17 <Rich> chair: Joanmarie_Diggs
18:33:24 <Rich> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:33:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/06-aria-minutes.html Rich
19:31:37 <janina> janina has joined #aria
22:22:48 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #aria