Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

11 Apr 2018


Janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, IanPouncey, MichaelC, tdrake
Leonie, John, Gottfried


<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2018Apr/att-0004/captcha-update-20180406.html

<janina> Argh, think I lost audio -- didn't realize ...

<MichaelC> scribe: tdrake

Agenda Overview; Announcements

janina: are there any items to add or focus on? News? none...

TPAC 2018 Planning

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/

janina: TPAC comes up once a year and it is time to start planning. We are asked if we are planning to meet.

it is the week of October 22 in Lyon, France.

ted: I will be in Bangalore.

ian: there's a good chance there will be a TPG group.

leonie is the person to confirm

joanie: we are planning to attend and have submitted a survey for attendance

thursday and friday for ARIA.

we would be asking APA to meet on monday and tuesday

janina: that sounds reasonable

becky: I don't know if knowbility will sponsor a trip for me.

janina: it's about 6 months, so it is time to plan

Michael, will guidelines be meeting.

Michael: APA and ARIA should avoid overlapping.

I can look up WCAG's time request.

Andrew did request monday and tuesday.

Charter Renewal https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter

janina: I don't know if there's more to say right now. We need to take it in quickly if there are more edits. I haven't looked at it this week.

we were hoping to wrap by the end of the month. Anyone with anything specific in the draft charter.

APA Verticals -- Continuing discussion

We've asked people to add a sentence or two to describe their verticals. If you haven't done this, please do. We need this ready by the time we submit charter

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Verticals_to_Track

ted: do we have previously published introductions that could be paraphrased

janina: perhaps for payments

michael: we added some bullet points to media last week as a reference. This is the depth we are asking for.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/community/payments-commerce-a11y/

becky: I began working on this earlier today and realized I had internet problems.

COGA Publication Readiness https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html

<MichaelC> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html

janina: A few months back, we finally got the Cognative Learning Taskforce's first working draft published.

There were some complaints that it was not as up to date as possible. We suggested publishing now and updating. They've asked for permission to update and they are now worried about how often it should be edited.

I've suggested they do edits whenever there were substantial changes, don't wait until it is perfect.

is what's there adequate for a working draft?

michael: I'm often saying "it's a working draft, publish and edit it later". But the content has unreadable sections, such as the table. I've suggested they clean this up and there is work on this.

janina: you are right about quality, but they need to get into the habit of publishing.

michael: I'm worried about them saying "this is published, start using it", but this is ok for review, not as a final draft.

janina: this is a working draft, don't rely on it for building.

be flexible.

michael: a translator was ready and we suggested waiting for a better version.

The value of publishing frequently is to receive constructive criticism.

michael: do people prefer publishing more often or wait until ready

becky: publish more often. People will look for the latest and notice it is a working draft. Let the user beware as long as we make it clear.

ian: I am generally on the side of publishing more often. I'm more concerned with COGA due to the sensitivities of the subject

michael: there are sensitivities, is it the resources for or about

ian: this is a subject that is particularly easy to get wrong. That makes me more cautious.

ted: as a developer, i expect a certain level of completeness when sharing the information.

janina: the problem with this document is a huge table that is difficult to grok

michael: it's a bit of doing as I say, not as I do.

I asked for distinction. If it comes from the cognitive task force, it should include what it says about themselves.

ian: I wouldn't want to put additional pressure to publish more often than they feel comfortable. the diversity of the subject adds difficulties

michael: there needs to be an effort to clean up the rough draft and request reviews.

<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask about possible way to make tables more readable

<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/core-aam/master/#mapping_role_table

joanie: If you look at what was done with core AAM, there were approaches to make the tables more accessible.

you can expand all sections, show and hide columns, etc. Perhaps we can use javascript to make the table easier to read, based on what the reader needs.

michael: it sounds like personalization

joanie: i would suggest adopting what we did in core-aam

michael: i think the mapping script could be reusable.

RQTF Update -- Janina, Jason

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2018Apr/att-0004/captcha-update-20180406.html

janina: Research Questions has been updating the protocols working group (prior to APA)


I expect research questions will formalize the draft and submit to APA for review within the next few weeks. We will need to send it out for reviews in May.

It's not too early to look at this and have ideas about what is missing or needs to be changed.

CSS Updates -- Ian

ian: not a lot has changed recently. I have a list of 4 people interested in joining the task force. I wanted to ask Michael about the sign up process.

michael: send me an email, copying them, with anything you know of the person. Do they already participate in a working group?

ian: they've all had some level of involvement.

I will also be determining what I am behind on.

janina: the WAI posting was succesful

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

janina: ian an action for user interface module.

ian: I don't think it needed much of a review. I need to check my notes.

michael: joanie to review file api.

joanie: no progress due to still working on getting AccName out the door.

michael: becky on shadow DOM

becky: we decided to wait longer.

janina: I need to bring in Charles

<MichaelC> action-2052 due 4 weeks

<trackbot> Set action-2052 Review https://www.w3.org/tr/shadow-dom/ shadow dom due date to 2018-05-09.

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

<MichaelC> Web of Things (WoT) Protocol Binding Templates

michael: one new publication: web of things protocol binding templates. This is a note published without a review draft.

It compliments other specs going through working draft.

Protocol Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to the specific protocol usage across the different standards. This is done through additional descriptive vocabulary that is used in the Thing Description.

michael: I don't think we need to worry about this.

W3C Spec Template Redesign http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Feb/0064.html

janina: I agree

michael: I talked with Philippe recently. He has talked to the redesign committee to present a template that will meet WCAG 2.0 or 2.1. It will need feedback from accessibility leads to help ensure this.

we can help out, but he has made a commitment

becky: is there a set of requirements? Are they still taking feedback. Can we download and read the specs offline?

michael: there is a link within the minutes to a set of resources and this includes a downloadable wiki

janina: we will live with this template for a while. It's important to look at it early.

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/

the project also includes redesigning the specs

Other Business

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/04/11 16:57:18 $

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)

Succeeded: s/no progress./no progress due to still working on getting AccName out the door./
Default Present: Janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, IanPouncey, MichaelC, tdrake
Present: Janina Joanmarie_Diggs IanPouncey MichaelC tdrake
Regrets: Leonie John Gottfried
Found Scribe: tdrake
Inferring ScribeNick: tdrake
Found Date: 11 Apr 2018
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]