Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

27 Jun 2018


janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, Becka11y, Léonie, JF, jasonjgw


<scribe> scribe: becka11y

Agenda Overview; Announcements

JS: any news?

Scheduling SSML Conversation with ETS

JS: people at ETS need a way to get browsers to use SSML so items are pronounced correctly; their proposal seems to fit with our charter - perhaps as an offshoot of personalization
... last April we decided to ask them to come to an APA to discuss proposal; they have proposed two dates in July, 11 or 18. Is there a preference

JF: unavailable on July 18
... actually IS available on July 18

<JF> +1

JS: will respond that we will meet with ETS on our call on July 18

<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to suggest that this might not be personalization

JD: just want to point out that this might not be personalization - it really isn’t a preference or option - is really about specifying the correct pronounciation

JS: suspect want this for learning disabilities as well

JD: AT needs to do the bidding of the author

JS: will defer further discussion to the meeting on july 18

Charter Renewal Update

MC: charters are going to AC today; available for voting to July 27; make sure your AC rep. votes

<MichaelC> Draft charter: https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter

<MichaelC> AC survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2018-apa-charter/

MC: current charter expires 7/31 so only 4 days to process AC comments - which is short

JS: comments before July 27 are preferred so we can address them sooner

MC: we need 24 affirmative votes

Captcha FPWD

JS: we have a highly revised of CAPCHA document with references and research
... we believe we have a working draft we can queue up for release in first week of July
... MC made some editorial changes; JS has a few more simple ones; Michael’s comments seem a bit large for editorial work. Question for group - do we need to run a new CFC?
... I am comfortable moving forward as we will have a larger review and changes going forward - re-ordering items, etc

<MichaelC> All the diffs from what was in CfC: https://github.com/w3c/apa/compare/1f5febb77be9c09906899174ae21e5ff7302e443...3ab12c39297962e6c298edd0c029dc3391e96335

JS: I believe we have not violated process - no technology related changes
... anyone following old link from 2005 witll see this new document - only way to find old document is through this new one
... abstract needed editorial revision; Michael has improved it; want to bring more substance into the introduction to frame problem

JW: agreeing with Janina; don’t believe that any of the substance of the document has been changed; nothing in changes that would change vote on CFC - and any concerns on substance can be updated in a future draft

JF: would like a final read through before voting

MC: I had tried to wrap CAPTCHA into abbreviation markup - but was awkward so has not used abbreviation.

JF: as long as full term is expanded at first use

MC: confirms that is expanded in introduction

LW: believes CAPTCHA is a term of art and widely recognized

JS: will announce when working draft is released that there will be another round of edits and publication
... thanks for everyone who worked on this, esp. RQTF. Very deeply referenced

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about abbr on captcha

TPAC 2018 https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2018

JS: Registration is open for TPAC and hotel booking is working
... there is a wiki page, I will update it with meeting times, etc

JD: there is a CG about getting math onto web pages; ARIA WG is liasoning with this CG; want to work with ARIA WG wrt a11y; I would to APA to be involved so may involve some re-organizing to times

JS: we will make that happen: involvement with Math CG and ARIA at TPAC

AB Update RE Evergreen -- Leoni

LW: AB looking to make W3C process work better with development teams today - ie agile
... process can go through in 170 days in ideal world; AB is proposing an “Evergreen” standard; rather than going through fixed set of steps and have patent process legal reviews happen in fixed places - try to have more ongoing review
... WG can select which process to use; if use Evergreen all changes to spec will be test driven (even to editor’s draft); make sure additions are based on reality and usable
... HTML group has a mechanism that tags issues for other groups to review, for example; spreads out the review in small doses rather than one huge review; still need to figure out how APA can perform a final review

JS: what kind of timeline are we assuming? how and when will this process get concluded?

LW: AB has a f2f meeting in August; plan to provide to AC shortly after; further disucssion at TPAC;
... using new process has to be noted in WG charter - thus either re-charter or wait until charter expires

JS: suspect that groups with mature techs. that are only refining may find this most useful vs. specs that are still in definition stage (for ex: personalization). So good to have two pathways

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note some horizontal review requires gestalt view and to ask about https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79

LW: have such a variety of specs across W3C that are cutting edge and need faster process

MC: worried that APA might get overwhelmed with review requests; Believes that specs need a gesalt view over all - can’t always catch issues with just individual reviews

LW: with HTML most editors recognize when need input from other groups (I18N, APA, etc) but other groups may not recognize the need to notify horizontal groups. Thus need to work out those details

<MichaelC> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79#issuecomment-337368521

MC: there is an issue about living standards in github - this seems related; Are the living standards being reviewed as part of this process?

LW: yes, are releasing that W3C needs to update process; will also be more suitable to AAM - accessibility api mappings group/proposal

JS: horizontal review can help get accessibilty reviews into all specs; APA needs to look into how group can be notified for review, similar to what LW described for i18n and HTML. For example, APA to help review security and privacy

LW: I18N could help APA use github better

<JF> +1 to that Leonie

LW: there is language in the charter template that WG will include accessibility but it is in a different place than where security is addressed; HM indicated that a11y isn’t in the same paragraph/place as security and privacy because it isn’t considered as high priorty

MC: has pushed for raising a11y to same level as S&P but hasn’t won that battle

JS: horizontal reviews should work the same for all stacks

JF: more horizonal reviews is good but issue is that we don’t have the manpower to keep up; we need to build up the numbers within APA

LW: suggests she and JF as AC reps work to get more participation in APA

JS: I am tagged with creating a web page about APA that can help as a recruiting tool; Michael created a blog post about this in the past year or so

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/blog/2017/04/apa-review/

JW: wrt evergreen and horizonatl review - assume git branch would be created to review; once test cases confirmed it would be moved into working branch

LS: not necessarily; HTML uses main branch as working branch; creates a new stable branch for progression to CR

JW: if spec doesn’t have visibility of HTML or CSS - we need to catch the a11y /horizontal review before implementations happen; language needs to encourage review earlier in process before implementations get further along

LW: new features are now incubated before being included into spec; this includes implementation review

JW: want to see the horizontal review during this incubation period

LW: suggest trying to meeting with Web Platform Incubater WG at TPAC

JF: suggest proposing a Wed. Plenary session on Wednesday at TPAC to introduce APA and recruit
... propose that this group takes up item to create a session on APA

JS: we should combine with I18n, security for such a session; meeting with incubation group before TPAC is also a good idea
... confirms with Michael that there are no specs we need to immediately review
... no meeting on July 4;

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/06/27 17:13:01 $

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/taht/that/
Succeeded: s/horitonal/horizontal/
Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs Becka11y Léonie JF jasonjgw
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y
Found Date: 27 Jun 2018
People with action items: 

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]