WebRTC: accessibility-related use cases, requirements, and implications.

jgw: We need Josh, but we can work on this even without him
... have a few issues
... Especially RTT reqs
... RFC5194

<jasonjgw> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5194

jgw: Sec. 5.2 has numbered reqs relevant to our concerns
... Some of these were surprising to me
... Notes that this uses SIP
... Notes should be possible to start conversation in any mode -- including RTT, or to add it later during conversation
... Allow users to select any conversation and preferred mode
... Ability to fallback

jb: This is 2008, are we sure this is up to date requirement?
... Is this most timely?

jgw: Good question, though I didn't find anything more recent

<jasonjgw> Janina reviewed earlier work on WebRTC, where similar requirements were discussed. We need to ensure we're working from an up to date requirements list. Janina is surprised that an IETF spec would be the basis - ITU would be more anticipated.

jb: Other question is what the WebRTC WG is doing now
... This doc may or not be relevant. We need to know

jgw: Would be surprised if many of these would have changed
... Would not expect reductions or deletions, perhaps additions though
... U.S. gov docs refer to a different RFC from about the same time

<jasonjgw> Janina: we need to ensure that the required capabilities are supported by WebRTC.

sh: Think Josh is important to this conversation

jb: Should we look at his doc?

[sh and sn agree we need Josh to help guide us through a meaningful discussion]

jgw: So, one action is to find out what spec is the basis we need to compare WebRTC against?
... We would then need to see whether the W3C spec supports all it should

jb: Thinking of others to invite? Perhaps on the 12th?

jgw: Probably

jb: Will see if we can get some additional involvement, also what the timelines might be

CAPTCHA Note draft - open issues.

<jasonjgw> Janina: timing of the announcement proved awkward, due to the precedence that needed to be accorded to the W3C/WHAT WG agreement.

<jasonjgw> Janina: a further working draft will be prepared by early next week, leading to a short CfC and publication on the 14th, with the review period running to 14 July.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2019Jun/0009.html

Timeline specific post is here:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2019Jun/0001.html

<Judy_alt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2019Jun/0001.html

<Judy_alt> oops

<MichaelC> WCAG 2.2 process

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: scribe:, janina, scott_h, MichaelC, SteveNoble
Present: scribe: janina scott_h MichaelC SteveNoble
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: janina
Inferring Scribes: janina
Found Date: 05 Jun 2019
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.)