Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

13 Nov 2019


JF, Matthew_Atkinson, Joanmarie_Diggs, Joshue, Becka11y, Joshue108


<scribe> scribe: JF

Agenda Review & Announcements

JS: standard agenda, with some persistent items (Matthew's review of HTML, Becky's review of community groups)

MA: know that Josh has done review of XR materials, will tackle that this week

JO: There has been some discussion at RQTF about this too
... will be working on that later today / this week

Task Force Updates

JS: Josh mentioned the RQTF discussion earlier today - follow up from the Immersive Workshop last week in Seattle
... triggered some thoughts related to MAUR

might need to split the document into multiple parts - getting quite large

JS: still awaiting the official W3C transcripts

not yet released. Will advise when made public

JO: Good summary. Have a sense that we are gaining critical mass

lots of interest in this topic

JS: Also, the Pronunciation TF met today

topics include future process... will be asking Leonie (representing Web Plat) to an APA call, so that we can plan out implementation and uptake for their spec

this means we need to ensure we cover all the bases. As this will be mainstream, we need to also figure out hand-off and timing (etc.)

need to meet with Irfan et al regarding this

we also discussed the wide, mainstream application being a "nice to have", but if we don't get something that works for AT, we'll still have come up short

Irfan discussed a F2F meeting @ CSUN. Discussed possibly going to the ATIA conference in January

JS: any other TF info?

knows that Personalization is working towards publishing

JO: hoping to have the accessible RTC doc ready soon as well

Charter Updates https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22

JS: anything here?

MC: yes, a few

<MichaelC> Web Payments draft charter

<MichaelC> Web Payments draft charter diff

This group is continuing work... do not have a liason statement to APA, even though we are working with them

JS: we had discussed creating a power document for them at one point...
... since they've scoped this under the UI, there may not be much for us. We did discuss the need for an "accessible" receipt. Pretty much everything else is covered in WCAG

MC: so, do they need a liason with APA?

JS: I would "trade away" a Liason if Ian was prepared to add the warning comment

MC: don't want to conflate charter discussion with our "ask"

<janina> Oops. brb

MC: they have added a section related to accessibility considerations. So we decided about a year ago that we could live with that

JS: we might take that list and iterate on it here...

MC: getting back to charter... do we have any comment to make? Hearing that we need to do a follow-up on Payment Request API

per charter that should be in the next version

JS: for the statement that got incorporated

MC: if we want something, we will need it soon

ACTION Janina add accessible receipting to the accessibility statement for payments

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2220 - Add accessible receipting to the accessibility statement for payments [on Janina Sajka - due 2019-11-20].

<MichaelC> action-2220: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Payment_Request_API

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2220 Add accessible receipting to the accessibility statement for payments.

<MichaelC> Data Exchange WG draft charter

<MichaelC> Audio WG draft recharter

[Discussion of reviewing Audio WG materials]

MC: We've not provided much to them in the past. Do we want to have a liaison for this as well?

JS: Wishing Joannie was here... wondering if we need to chat with them
... thinking we may need to have a mechanism for 'exclusion' of TTS [sic], and other concerns

MC: we need to figure out if we want a liaison statement from them to us at this point

<MichaelC> GPU for the Web Working Group Charter

MC: One last item, not yet ready for horizontal review, but pending and may be of interest of us

notice of interest for a new charter

MC: thought we might be doing some work that relates to this (?)

JS: Thinks yes, as there is also a lot of AI there...

MC: requesting comments as PR on their draft charter

JS: sounds like more discussion is needed, but we are missing a key participant

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

MC: there are a few that are "stuck"

<MichaelC> CSS Text Module Level 3

there is a CSS module - we've looked previously and then there was nothing, so...

JS: if we didn't find anything previously, let's not go fishing

<MichaelC> Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0

JS: the CAPTCHA killer

MC: now is the time for a review. who should we assign this to?

<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ - due 4 weeks

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2221 - Review decentralized identifiers (dids) v1.0 https://www.w3.org/tr/did-core/ [on Janina Sajka - due 2019-12-11].

JS: can assign to me

<MichaelC> action-2221: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Decentralized_Identifiers_(DIDs)_v1.0

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2221 Review decentralized identifiers (dids) v1.0 https://www.w3.org/tr/did-core/.

HTML Review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2019Nov/0003.html

<Matthew_Atkinson> Review of my review findings, including short-term things and also matters in which I think we should be interested and should be tracking: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2019Nov/0003.html

JS: please start with largest concerns first

MA: propose to discuss 4 major issues, then loop back to existing questions
... was invited to the WHAT WG a11y team @ GitHub
... kind of cool

only had one comment to advance: navigation in the opener not being announced by AT

believe we need to file an issue with a warning for authors: screen readers likely won't know this is happening

once I file on GitHub, will advise the list

there is another issue that I'd like some opinion on

+1 to MA's approach

MA: Question - there have been some tweaks to tabindex behavior - minor - one of things observed is that some browsers place the video 'player' in the focus order, and then the controls

which I think is good, as it speeds interaction (no need to tab through all the controls)

however there seems to be a discussion of taking the audio and video elements *OUT* of focus order

W3C prescedence is that those elements *are* focused, but WHAT WG wants to remove that

MA: is this an issue?

+1 to keeping audio and video in focus order

MA: the way that FF works today, if the page has the default controls, the video is a "floating block", as are the controls - they folat above (or below) the video player

that is the practical behavior of both FF and Chrome

JS: don't want to rely just on "current practices"

MA: agree. My concern is that some folks might see this as a pro, but others as a con
... although the browser generated controls were less accessible than I expected

don't think the spec speaks to how they should be laid out - the behavior was unusual

think that either way, p[eople will have opinions

JF: suggest to use the "Pave the cowpaths" metaphor. If this is current behavior now, it should be 'specced' as such

MA: wil review again to make sure this isn't a recurring issue

if this doesn't match relaity, will use the "shold match" argument

MA: do we think this should hold up publishing

BG: only concern is if they mandate "taking away"... they currently don't. But what happens when they land on the video? Does it announce the title, or also announce the controls

JD: the screen reader may or may not give enough of accurate information

BG: not every user goes line-by-line, they may be tabbing instead

JD: we might also argue that this is a SR bug
... have seen previousl giant "hacks" to try and force SR behavior

MA: so, am I hearing everyone in favor of keeping video and audio in focus order

JD: "personally" thinks it could go either way, but...

but if everyone outside of us says it *SHOULDN'T*, screen readers have other mechanisms to deal with concern

JD: this is all about containers at some level, so ya, we can figure this out

MA: OK, so when I file this, the "bug" is that the spec doesn't match the browsers, and then we can offer some suggestions
... Not clear if the scrubber control comes into focus... clear that there is a bigger discussion here we need to think through
... I think I have enough to file a bug, but... should this be a delay to the publication?
... believe no. Is this a show stopper

JF: either there is a bug filed against the spec, or against the browsers...

MA: asking about process

MC: File in WHAT WG, and a reference issue at W3C. Not sure if this snapshot would be turned into a rec

JS: yes, and don't want to wait a whole additional year

MC: OK, then file bug at WHAT WG

MA: will email list later today. Will note that we feel it is an issue, and advise of forthcoming GitHub issue (to be filed tomorrow)

and then link to the bug on our lists

[agreement on Matthew's plan]

MA: two other concerns in the email - won't discuss now, but there are some other things believe we should be tracking

please read and check out the concerns

JS: standing agenda item. We may need to put Becky ahead of you on next agenda

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: janina to review Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ - due 4 weeks

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: 2019/11/13 18:02:56 $

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/liason/liaison/
Succeeded: s/tyheir/their/
Succeeded: s/JB:/JD:/
Succeeded: s/JB:/JD:/g
Default Present: JF, Matthew_Atkinson, Joanmarie_Diggs, Joshue, Becka11y
Present: JF Matthew_Atkinson Joanmarie_Diggs Joshue Becka11y Joshue108
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 13 Nov 2019
People with action items: janina

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]