<scribe> scribe: MichaelC
JB: I can´t meet 14 March
wanna meet next week instead?
or ok w/ 4 weeks?
Next meeting: 28 March 2018
<Judy> agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
<shawn> We're currently planning to announce the WAI website redesign beta on 15 March. (Rationale for doing it a day or two earlier or later is welcome.)
<shawn> We would like any comments before 6 April.
<shawn> We hope to "flip the switch" the week of 16 April.
js: the checklist is not a standalone doc, it´s tied to the main doc
they´re at different maturity levels
in principle APA willing to publish
but need to figure out what to publish where and how to promote
jb: I have thoughts regarding where "FAST" might best be visible for W3C to internal processes [such as: accessibility horizontal reviews]
mc: a whole whack of thoughts which, as scribe, he didn´t capture in scribing
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to distinguish between "FAST"'s utility as an early resource vs a wide-review-timing resource, and where it should be posted
jb: @@ project management @@
got checklist ¨done¨ (scribe´s quotes) last year
but only linked from Art of Consensus more recently
tends to get looked at later in the spec development process
whereas its main utility is early in the process
want it to be discoverable to others than just W3C WGs
nobody´s saying checklist should go to TR
js: sounds good
APA also noted SC35/WD36 moving forward
we haven´t cross referenced that yet
jb: many things could happen
how do we make sure what we have is discoverable?
js: promote on APA site
<Judy> mc: the APA website is designed mainly for WG participates
mc: APA site is for WG participants, how do we make simultaneously useful for others?
jb: use current work section
or announcements
or both
js: would help for W3C to systematize horizontal review function, expectations, procedures
so we can sync with the efforts of others
ack
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to respond wrt horizontal review function systematization
jb: MC and RRS supposed to be working on that
RI for I18N
seems slow moving
so I´m bringing up here so we can move this forward
mc: that´s true, RRS and I acknowledge the work but not time to focus
I would like a formal place to put stuff
otherwise I´m just picking a random place, and it´s already in a random place
jb: will discuss around
please let me know when a publication imminent
slh, how will this fit into WAI site?
slh: I have thoughts
give me warning before you publish and I´ll put them together
js: we just gotta sort out who does what work
mc: think it´s on me, main doc needs cleanup as it might look more complete than it is right now; and checklist also needs editorial work
but I got WCAG 2.1
ts: Publishing WG supposed to publish FPWD of DPub ARIA 2.0 Q1 2018
we´re behind schedule for a 2.0, but now unsure if we need a major update, or just a 1.1
only a few terms we want to add
and incorporate errata
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-aria/issues
want to discuss 1.1 vs 2.0 with Joanie
a 1.1 would need a AAM update, which we´re not chartered for
but would be minimal work
also need to sort out which github repo, and which WG
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to say 1.1, we could do a dpub-aam 1.1 as well. Easy peasy. :)
jd: recommend 1.1
ARIA charter covers
mc: another whack of unscribed stuff
exchange with Matt Garrish about dpub-aria repo vs dpub-aria-2.0 repo
dpub-aria created to move spec out of aria repo, but with idea that further work could happen there
then discovered the 2.0 one had been created months earlier
have some plan for technical coordination in dpub-aria repo
no consensus over which WG does the work
I prefer joint between ARIA and publishing
ARIA has it in charter scope still
but Ivan not favoring
expect ARIA will wind up supporting whichever way it goes
jb: historically ARIA developed in PFWG then ARIA WG, but then the associated docs are getting picked up by other groups; and joint TFs becoming less favored at W3C -- but I want to highlight the need still please for coordination, in terms of strategy, and technical details.
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask for specifics on the interoperability issues
ts: Ivan ok with joint work now
concern over bureaucracy
from ARIA WG being distracted on other work and unable to respond
in any case, we wouldn´t publish without ARIA WG group
so now practically, a question of which repo
Matt moved to dpub-aria repo because of shared files
can send requests for CfC to Joanie
jb: note horizontal review shouldn´t be done by individual, should be done with WG with clear record of WG indicating satisfaction with how comments addressed
jd: ARIA coordinates with WebPlat and SVG on other AAMs
so we just pinch hit as needed
jb: have heard about unreliable interoperability
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask for specifics on the interoperability issues
jd: nothing on Personalization Semantics
FPWD just came out, so no wide review request
no input from authors on Graphics, but have implementations
only 3 roles, but have 100% implementation on several platforms
one more says ¨working on it¨
so expect to be ready to enter CR soon
jb: great
it used to be possible to have zero-length CR if implementation report ready
if you had clear exit criteria and have met them
khs: this is Graphics Module?
jd: Graphics-ARIA -> Graphics-AAM
the module defines the roles, the AAM defines the UA implementation
same as for ARIA
and Core-AAM
we plan to use similar exit criteria to what we had for ARIA
and enter CR with our implementations in place
to avoid surprises
jb: suggest you write up the exit criteria now and do a dry run of them
jd: done
jb: get MC to take to PLH and probably JB who might get preview from RRS
also watch the Call for Exclusions timeline impact
gk: IPDF, book industry study group (BISG), DAISY, and a few more acronyms
<doing something that scribe lost in all the acronyms>
reporting results on epub-test.org
re-engineered testing system to target non-technical users
launch crowd-sourced approach before CSUN
put stuff up at inclusive-publishing.org
will announce broadly, including in W3C publish fora
jb: interesting
gk: we have a test book
containing tests when you open it in a reader
tests have IDs, users can report results
developers respond to this well
lots o´ work though
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/have thoughts/have thoughts regarding where "FAST" might best be visible for W3C to internal processes [such as: accessibility horizontal reviews]/ Succeeded: s/imminenet/imminent/ Succeeded: s/linked from Guide/linked from Art of Consensus/ Succeeded: s/will scribe self/historically ARIA developed in PFWG then ARIA WG, but then the associated docs are getting picked up by other groups; and joint TFs becoming less favored at W3C -- but I want to highlight the need still please for coordination, in terms of strategy, and technical details./ Succeeded: s/Spring/Sprint/ Succeeded: s/book industry study book/book industry study group (BISG)/ Present: Shawn Judy Jeanne janina tzviya MichaelC Joanmarie_Diggs Katie_Haritos-Shea Sharron kim_patch George Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]