<scribe> scribe: Joshue108

XR and immersive Web accessibility.

<jasonjgw> Josh has made progress on the XR user needs document, which will be pushed to a branch.

http://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/XAUR/xaur/index.html

<jasonjgw> Josh will undertake formatting work on the document and remove use cases (e.g., multimedia, education, etc.). The focus of the document should be confined to user needs and requirements.

<jasonjgw> Josh will clarify what user needs are.

<jasonjgw> Janina notes that the applications specifically for users with disabilities are valuable/relevant, but not user needs.

http://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/XAUR/xaur/index.html

<jasonjgw> Responding to Judy, Josh clarifies the state of the documents and the branches.

<jasonjgw> Josh maintains that the real and substantive content is coming otgether and will form the basis of further work.

<jasonjgw> Josh is keen to proceed to a more formal review process.

<jasonjgw> Josh is interested in comments on substantive issues/errors.

<jasonjgw> Responding to Janina's question regarding whether the specific applications for users with disabilities will be taken into a separate document, Josh clarifies his intention to do so.

JW: I've had a look and commented on the sectioning elements.

Can you revisit the sectioning elements etc?

JOC: Yup, can do.

<jasonjgw> Judy notes that individual needs vary, and that the manner in which the needs are stated should reflect this (e.g., "someone with a cognitive disability may need...") - i.e., stated in a way that is not categorical.

<jasonjgw> Josh was aware of the issue and plans to work on it.

<jasonjgw> Judy notes the difference between the user and system perspectives: "a user may need...", and "A system must support...".

<jasonjgw> Judy notes that this document may not include the system perspective as it's focused on the user perspective - the user may need...

<jasonjgw> Josh notes that he has now identified both user needs and associated requirements analogous to those in the MAUR.

<jasonjgw> Judy: the abstract should have clear cautionary statements.

<jasonjgw> Josh notes that he has moved towards having "reasonably solid" requirements, and that it is now much more cohesive, clear, and focused.

JW: This is in flux, any other comments?

<jasonjgw> Josh has a series of commits on the way, and will then be seeking feedback regarding the range of user needs addressed and whether the requirements are appropriate/fit for purpose.

<jasonjgw> Josh will notify the Task Force when the branch is updated.

<SteveNoble> Janina: glad to see the clarity that has emerged in this work

Real-time communication accessibility.

/realjoshue108.github.io/apa/rtc/index.html/https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/AccessibleRTC/rtc/index.html//realjoshue108.github.io/apa/rtc/index.html

<SteveNoble> Josh: please review the document - Jason has sent the link via email to this list

<SteveNoble> Janina: follow the standard process as Note draft

<SteveNoble> Janina: we will probably be missing some time due to holidays, so this will elongate the process

<SteveNoble> Judy: Note track approach seems obvious; usually takes longer that we want for this process to culminate

<SteveNoble> Judy: may make sense for Jason and Janina to sort out a reasonable timeframe to push through the process

<SteveNoble> Jason: suggest giving ourselves a deadline for internal review before sending out for wider review

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/AccessibleRTC/rtc/index.html

<SteveNoble> Judy: examples of things we need to fix: since we don't have a context for users who land on a page, we should have a clear abstract and status

<SteveNoble> Judy: Issue around 1.3 - looks like a note about status, which seems out of place for that place

<SteveNoble> Judy: the acknoledgement section also needs to be populated

<SteveNoble> Judy: the table may need some reworking for better readability

<SteveNoble> Jason: usual approach is to include "editors notes" for particular places where we are interested in particular feedback

<SteveNoble> Judy: may be worth doing a manual include for acknowledgements, in addition to the APA include

I'll follow up with Janina about the Acknowledgements etc

<SteveNoble> Jason: Have been reviewing European accessibility act which may have implications for this work

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about timelines

<SteveNoble> Judy: back to the XR user needs discussion and timelines

<SteveNoble> Jason: the RTC draft is much closer than the XR, so in the short term we should focus more on RTC for now

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to express a concern with that plan

<SteveNoble> Josh: should have the two documents ready for limited sharing by end of week

+1 to Janina

<SteveNoble> Janina: do the internal sharing with pertinent W3C groups first

<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to speak to some concerns

<SteveNoble> Josh: would like us to review the XR document once it is sent out -- probably tomorrow

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/https://realjoshue108.github.io/apa/rtc/index.html/https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/AccessibleRTC/rtc/index.html/
Default Present: jasonjgw, Joshue, scott-H, SteveNoble, janina
Present: jasonjgw Joshue scott-H SteveNoble janina Joshue108
Found Scribe: Joshue108
Inferring ScribeNick: Joshue108
Found Date: 04 Dec 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.)