scirbe: becka11y

Agenda Overview; Announcements

Janina: reviews agenda
... additions?

Becka11y: asks about TPAC plans

Janina: any news?
... anything from AC meeting?

LW: conversations between WHAT WG and W3C discussions were positive during AC meeting last week

Charter Renewal Submitted

Janina: CFC for charter was unanimous at the end - there was a rejection but it was discussed and resolved after a few changes

MC: charter currently under mgmt review; have gotten some editorial comments; Wendy S asked why we don’t have a liason statement to WHAT WG

<janina> For the record our draft charter decision email is at:

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2018May/0028.html

MC: added a liason stmt but want to review with this group - do we support adding liason statement with WHAT WG

Janina: spec. most directly involved is HTML; expect there is most interaction in web platforms group; also believe security and internationalization reviews/ liason is already in place

MC: really just a statement of position - doesn’t force or prevent us from working with WHAT WG

Janina: it seems premature to add a liason statement to our charter w/o coordinating with Web Platforms and other W3c Group responsible for horizontal review

MC: with did work with WHAT WG in the past via notifications so there is some precedent set; charter is for the next 3 years

Janina: The fact that we reached out in the past shows we are being pro-active - not sure why we need a statement other than naming a liason

MC: We have ISO ane IETF but we haven’t interacted with IETF in past

LW: the proposed collab. agreement between WHAT WG and W3C at AC meeting would have the web platform WG act as liason - but this is still a proposed agreement
... Web platform charter runs out in Sept.

MC: Suggests adding some flexible language in the charter. We can push back on Wendy explaining that we assume there will be a more coordinated liason effort within the W3C and it doesn’t seem appropriate for APA to include at this point

LW: agree with Janina that there is too much uncertainty to add liason with WHAT WG into apa charter

MC: will remove it from charter and respond to Wendy that group is uncomfortable with adding liason statement due to uncertainty of working relationships at this time

No objections from the group

TPAC Planning

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

Janina: we are planning to be at TPAC;
... expect APA meets Monday and Tuesday; WCAG is meeting at the same time and will require Michael’s participation
... we need to look at what other groups are meeting at TPAC and which ones we need to meet with; propose we walk through this list - possibly next week

I may be late next week.

TD: will not be here next week

I need to justify travel and benefit so need agenda

CSS Updates -- Ian

TD: not sure if able to attend TPAC - completing some travel

IP: proposal for documenting a11y tree of css properties - a group has formed but no meeting yet.
... Dominic R has created google doc with a11y properties; Ian has added some content; goal is to determine affects of properties on a11y and identify ones that need more investigation

TD: is in the group and happy to see this list and discussion

IP: have a good mix of people/organization in group; current focus is to doc. the state of the world wrt these properties

Janina: one possibility is creating a note that APA can publish; would like to see a link to doc. in the minutes

IP: will double check with group to make sure there are no issues making it public

Janina: some tweaks to APIs may also come out of this group

IP: ... Alexdander S. ; apple, google, MS involved

Janina: some old actions that will assign to Ian - feel free to throw back to me
... one was to document possible additions to media queries

HTML 5.3 Review -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2018May/0005.html

Janina: thanks LW for email with list of specific issues - walked through that list on last call; forwarded one of them to the ARIA WG

LW: group also sent a request for feedback to ARIA and have had no reply

MC: you might not expect a response from ARIA

LW: please ask ARIA group for a response that they are not reviewing
... anything I can help to explain further?

MC: first item - focusing dialog instead of first focusable element

LW: recommendation is to put focus on the dialog container when opening the dialog - then first tab takes use to first focusable element; this causes AT to announce the dialog
... want the browser vendors to take that action - although dialog is still at risk - only chrome has implemented

I tested this recently and only chrome implements and it doesn’t trap focus

LW: need at least two implementations to include so that is why marked at risk

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

Janina: will respond to Leonie’s email. and thanks for making it easy for us to review

MC: spec reviews - CSS fonts module - Ian; if respond put a pointer to response in this action and close

IP: response in progress

MC: shadow dom on Becky is that still relevant? spec is marked don’t look here so suggest closing; will close

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

MC: ARIA in HTML is in list - do we need to wrangle ARIA?

Janina: we have; they will be responding to Web Platforms

LW: Web platform requested that ARIA in HTML move to CR; have been asked to provide test suite to verify that W3C validator correctly validates the authoring conformance info in ARIA in HTML spec
... Web platform is currently in progress and once completed expect it to move to CR
... I believe ARIA WG reviewed this;

MC: I don’t believe APA has to push ARIA on this

Janina: reasonable to ask ARIA for review once goes to CR

<MichaelC> CSS Grid Layout Module Level 2

MC: CSS grid module layout level 2 - wide request for review sent out in April

IP: no specific comments other than to make clear that this can affect a11y - make sure content order and reading order are consistent

<MichaelC> Payment Method: Basic Card

MC: 2 payment specs - payment request API has gone to CR - we have sent comments but need to make certain they were dealt with

<MichaelC> Payment Request API

Janina: will look at this during the week

MC: Web VTT has gone to CR; We have sent comments need to verify they were dealt with

Community Group Review

Janina: will look at this as well
... we haven’t gone though the list of newly created community groups in quite awhile. We want to make sure that A11y is being considered and there is representation
... we are overdue to review this list again - at least the active ones
... helpful if someone can go through this list in advance

Is there a list or do we need to go fishing to find new ones?

MC: our list is widely out of date

<MichaelC> APA CG tracking

MC: last updated a year ago - any community groups since then are not in this.

<MichaelC> All Community Groups

MC: list can be sorted by creation date; there appear to be 30ish new groups

Janina: we don’t need to consider the ones in the last 3 months since we need them to be active

MC: merging of web and mobile app; WEB 5G accessibility, Sychronized multi-media for pub. etc
... a bunch will have no relation to APA and that will be obvious

Janina: payments is Ted and me

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)

Present: janina Becka11y tdrake Léonie IanPouncey MichaelC
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Becka11y
Inferring Scribes: Becka11y
Found Date: 23 May 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.)