Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

10 Jul 2019


jasonjgw, janina, Joshue, Joshue108
janina, Josh


Real-time communication accessibility - use cases and requirements.

<janina> scribe: janina

<Joshue108> <intros>

<Joshue108> scribe: Josh

<Joshue108> JS: I'm chair of APA and we have a lot of TFs

<Joshue108> We welcome you to our work

<Joshue108> Hope you find a welcome home, been involved in standards development a la W3C for ~ 15 years

<Joshue108> Have been involved with Daisy and other regs

<Joshue108> Deep background in the tech, I'm an AT user also.

<Joshue108> MC: I'm the staff contact to APA

<Joshue108> And the related TFs, I look after the process and have been at w3c for 13 years.

<Joshue108> Worked in accessiblity outside for several years.

<janina> jo: Introduces himself especially current responsibilities around use cases and emerging tech

<janina> jgw: Introduces himself -- involved sinc around 1997

<janina> Wow, we have two former WCAG chairs in this group!

<Joshue108> <snap>

<janina> estella: Introduces herself, heavily involved in media a11y

<Joshue108> http://www.imac-project.eu

<Joshue108> JS: We are happy for your input..

<Joshue108> Anyone talk to you about IRC dependency?

<Joshue108> Est: Yes.

<janina> jgw: Moving to WebRTC discussion ...

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/

<janina> jo: Our use cases cover RTC, because not everything that should be in WebRTC is yet there

<janina> jo: Notes that some of our use cases are covered in other specs, so we're trying to be appropriate in the specs we address

<janina> jgw: Was suggesting Josh's document should cover use cases/user scenarios to support RFC requirements doc, which has reqs, but not supported by use cases

<janina> jo: It's RFC5194

<Joshue108> JS: We want to be able to explain if there is something missing.

<Joshue108> And the real reason is the user scenario.

<jasonjgw> Janina suggests we need to capture/explain the user need and scenario - not just each requirement.

<janina> jo: Most obvious that WebRTC needs to support RTT asap

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases#Internet_Relay_Chat_Style_Interface_required_for_Blind_Users

<janina> jo: Reviews distinction between RTT and standard IRC behavior and how it serves different use cases

<janina> jo: RTT for deaf & hard of hearing; IRC for blind and other TTS users

<janina> jgw: Asks what we should do to advance this while Josh is on holliday?

<janina> jo: Check whether we're happy with the use case write-ups

<janina> jo: Also an approach on getting support in WebRTC

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases#Further_group_review_required

<janina> jgw: Asking about interfacing with APA

<janina> jo: also on back writing use cases for reqs that don't have them

<janina> jo: Have notes which ones relate where

<janina> jo: So as much review as can be done

<janina> jo: and check on the mappings, please

<janina> jgw: still worried whether we've identified a use case for each req

<janina> jo: mostly, but let's check on that and have a discussion

<janina> jo: We also don't want to get stuck on that

<Joshue108> +1 to Jason to dividing it up

<Joshue108> JS: Perhaps we may just want to review and take it up when Josh comes back.

<jasonjgw> Janina queries the time constraint regarding WebRTC.

<jasonjgw> Josh isn't entirely sure.

<janina> js: Suggest we want to be sure to schedule time at TPAC to clarify timelines, what's possible still

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/

<janina> ACTION: Janina to draft rtt use case question to the WebRTC group.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2202 - Draft rtt use case question to the webrtc group. [on Janina Sajka - due 2019-07-17].

Web of Things - accessibility.

<janina> jgw: Discussion started on list on what a11y reqs might be

<janina> jgw: We're concerned about native support for a11y

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Wot_usecases

<janina> jo: Notes his architecture review for APAjo: Just want to note we have good use cases -- direct hearing aid support, traffic light info, etc.

WoT Architecture Review

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WoT_Architecture_review

<janina> jo: Notes many ways iot communicates

<janina> jo: also a scripting api

<janina> jo: looking for common ways to address com

<janina> jo: also security/privacy

<Joshue108> Q: To what degree is accessibility an implementation detail of WoT?

<Joshue108> Q: What are useful examples of Linked Data Vocabulary that can provide semantic accessibility extensions to thing descriptions?

<janina> jgw: Asks whether a11y depends on how devices are described in the json-ld

<janina> jo: example purpose of a thing

<janina> jo: or dynamic interaction

<Joshue108> Q Accessibility questions about Thing to Thing descriptions

<Joshue108> JS: I've not heard things that give me a lot of concern.

<Joshue108> On the dumb device end, on the UI we will have issues but thats par for the course.

<Joshue108> WoT have said they will support WCAG.

<Joshue108> But if over an API, we have options of alternatives to interface with it.

<Joshue108> Will be diverse, depending on implementation.

<Joshue108> But if there is a common API, we are ok, to the sensor end. Maybe straightforward.

<Joshue108> Some of the simpler sensor aspects have resulted in low power simple data streams.

<Judy> JB: coming back to the issue of RTT integration in RTC, there are a few questions we need to resolve in the next month or so.

<Judy> ...specifically, whether the current polyfill - javacscript approach provides adequate support in RTC 1.0, since the issue queue on that spec is closing or closed.

<Judy> ...there was review several years ago but not recently, and we need to determine if there are (possibly regulatory) requirements that should be better reflected for now, and I had started to check with colleagues in the deaf community, and with W3C team contact for RTC WG

<Judy> ...one version I had heard is that it may only need an explanatory paragraph and a pointer to be added to the spec, but this needs confirmation

<Judy> JS: I took an action earlier in the call to reach out to RTC WG to inquire whether they think what they have is sufficient

<Judy> JB: great thanks and would you mind coordinating with me on that, given that the WG thinks they've been told by PLH and DHM to not accept any new issues

<Judy> JS: happy to coordinate

<Judy> JB: great, thanks

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Janina to draft rtt use case question to the WebRTC group.

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/07/10 14:09:25 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Succeeded: s/be better reflected for now/be better reflected for now, and I had started to check with colleagues in the deaf community, and with W3C team contact for RTC WG/
Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, Joshue
Present: jasonjgw janina Joshue Joshue108
Found Scribe: janina
Found Scribe: Josh

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 116 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: janina, Josh
Found Date: 10 Jul 2019
People with action items: janina

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]