Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Teleconference

15 Jan 2020


janina, MichaelC, Joshue108_, Matthew_Atkinson, Joanmarie_Diggs, Becka11y, JF, irfan, Léonie, (tink)


<Matthew_Atkinson> Hi all, joining ASAP...

<Joshue108_> scribenick: Joshue108

Agenda Review & Announcements

<Joshue108_> JS: We have our standard agenda today..

<Joshue108_> but an extra one around converstaion with Leonie, as she is chairing diff groups..

<Joshue108_> Wearing a HTML hat, Web Platforms and working with AB..

<Joshue108_> We have a spec we want to turn into normative spec.. Pronunciation.

<Joshue108_> We want to talk about path etc

<Joshue108_> That was for later on.. Marku H will be hear also.

<Joshue108_> Anything else?

<Joshue108_> Becky: The community groups doesn't sort by date numbers so need to figure out sorting by status..

<Joshue108_> Michael/Roy?

<Joshue108_> JS: Good to know that..

<Joshue108_> Any ideas Michael?

<Joshue108_> We have a WAI CG meet later. So of interest.

<Joshue108_> Becky: Just wanted to raise it..

<Joshue108_> JS: Thnx.

Task Force Updates

<Joshue108_> JS: We've got some very busy TFs..

<Joshue108_> A number of docs in train..

<Joshue108_> We should have some from Personalisation.. in addition to module one.

<Joshue108_> RQTF has two use cases docs coming.

<Joshue108_> Pronunciation.. will be talking later.

<Joshue108_> What has come up is that we are writing explainers..

<Joshue108_> Good to do!

<Joshue108_> Question is.. how do we handle explainers.

<Joshue108_> Do we need CFCs etc?

<Joshue108_> Is that level of formality excessive.

<Joshue108_> Interested in feedback..

<Joshue108_> Any reason not to make an explainer a note Michael?

<Joshue108_> MC: No, I would expect them to be note track.. and should be completed as such.

<Joshue108_> JS: thought is was to be completed when spec is final.

<Joshue108_> Yup, should be standard.

<Joshue108_> JF: +1 to Michael.

<Joshue108_> Feels like it should be a note - there is some rigour but not like our tech REC track stuff.

<Joshue108_> Other comments?

<Joshue108_> Becky: +1 also

<Joshue108_> JS: If Markku can join earlier?

<Joshue108_> We can take it up earlier..

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

<Joshue108_> JS: Michael, anything we want to consider?

<Joshue108_> Nope, not now.

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

<Joshue108_> MC: No new items

<Joshue108_> JS: Ok

Community Groups Tracking Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Community_Groups

<Joshue108_> Becky: We had two..

<Joshue108_> Digital Identity take to WAI in 2020..

Adding Pronunciation to HTML Content -- The path forward

<Joshue108_> JS: Adding procunciation to W3C spec..

<Joshue108_> some background..

<Joshue108_> We've had this group working on telling TTS User Agents how to pronounce things..

<Joshue108_> This is important.. hence by people like Markku and Irfan are working on it..

<Joshue108_> We thought if we could broaden this out beyond APA, so it is more globally applicable..

<Joshue108_> So we have Leonie here..

<Joshue108_> We have some parts of the stack, explainer on the way etc..

<Joshue108_> Thats where we are at, and want to do this as a part of the wider W3C context.

<Joshue108_> MH: I think you got it..

<Joshue108_> MH: We realised at TPAC last year, that the application of this to the wider world of audio and TTS makes this more than just an a11y thing.

<Joshue108_> JS: Politically, we may not be able to fully do, as we need WHAT WG to agree also.

<Joshue108_> Leonie, at some point when we think it is ready, we should take this to WICG.

<Joshue108_> You were advising this makes sense..

<Joshue108_> Any concerns etc?

<Joshue108_> LW: Thnx. How much is this spec going to be implemented in browsers?

<Joshue108_> Will these be browser features?

<Joshue108_> JS: May not be native, 3rd part UAs - but thinking mainstream not necessarily

<Joshue108_> It is SSML we are introducing..

<Joshue108_> LW: We will need to get browsers on board.

<Joshue108_> And be clear about technical aspects..

<Joshue108_> Suggest taking the explainer and use cases etc to WICG very soon.

<Joshue108_> JS: Its there for them to use if wanted..

<irfan> https://github.com/w3c/pronunciation/blob/master/docs/explainer.md

<Joshue108_> MH: To date, as we've been talking about this.. I don't think there is heavy work on part of browser vendors.. explainer docs make that clear.

<Joshue108_> We discussed at TPAC.. explainer ready to go.

<Joshue108_> JS: We did have TAG members..

<Joshue108_> LW: Yes, it was useful but there were some questions.

<Joshue108_> I would take the explainer to them.

<Joshue108_> JS: You say take the explainer to show it, even if not a normative draft?

<Joshue108_> LW: Yes.

<Joshue108_> LW: One of the pain points, is based on past experience - in that if we co-ordinate and work together on a solution that would be better.

<Joshue108_> +1 to Leonie.

<Joshue108_> LW: My sense from TPAC is that those present thought the use cases were good.

<Joshue108_> JS: Share with TAG first and go to WICG.

<Joshue108_> LW: Both.

<Joshue108_> LW: but put it on WICG and let the TAG know..

<Joshue108_> JS: Recalling conversation from TPAC..

<Joshue108_> and here are things we discussed.

<Joshue108_> LW: If we get crickets in return thats fine..

<Joshue108_> But we will have brought the explainer, asked for input etc.. but they may or may not respond or implement etc.

<Joshue108_> JS: We could advance the normative parts there..

<Joshue108_> LW: Is that in APA charter?

<Joshue108_> JS: Some disagrement..

<Joshue108_> LW: <discussed how ideas get traction>

<Joshue108_> LW: Transfering work accross groups, seems convoluted.

<Joshue108_> Between incubators, spec dev and FPWD, then needs to go into group to get into REC track..

<Joshue108_> Best thing may be to post idea of explainer on WICG for discussion..

<Joshue108_> Engage with community and stakeholders, create some interest etc

<Joshue108_> Then after that, the where of the work is up for grabs.

<Joshue108_> Michael would know best.

<Joshue108_> JS: I'd like this to be mainstream if possible.

<Joshue108_> JS: Questions?

<Joshue108_> JF: I do..

<Joshue108_> JF: What happens if WHAT WG say they are not interested?

<Joshue108_> LW: Thats why we need to engage with browser people...

<Joshue108_> JF: <discussion on value proposition beyond a11y>

<Joshue108_> LW: We will need the browsers to do that..

<Joshue108_> That changes the tenor of conversation..

<Joshue108_> JF: We are trying to treat this like ARIA..

<Joshue108_> JF: The minimum from browsers would be like with ARIA..

<Joshue108_> MH: Yes, John has described this well.

<Joshue108_> Voice Assistence etc will want to be scraping content etc...

<Joshue108_> LW: I'm a little confused, @@

<Joshue108_> JS: We are hoping to find out..

<Joshue108_> JF: We are proposing a path,and want feedback on that..

<Joshue108_> JF: Mentions some vendors who may be intersted..

<Joshue108_> thought they are reluctant.

<Joshue108_> MK: We have tried to engage them in the past.. there are other reading tools that do scraping and they are happy to have this mark up available to them.

<Joshue108_> LW: Having browser vendors on board would be useful..

<Joshue108_> JF: But not critical..

<Joshue108_> LW: We don't know that..

<Joshue108_> LW: Depends on the stack..

<Joshue108_> Raises the need for WICG engagement..

<Joshue108_> MC: There must be non a11y use cases..

<Joshue108_> We should be armed with those to engage browser vendors..

<Joshue108_> LW: Google etc are looking at the web speech API for example.

<Joshue108_> They've done a lot of work, raised interest in speech as an input..

<Becka11y> scribe: becka11y

LW: HTML editor at WHAT - Philip Jägenstedt
... he and others have been working on WEB speech api; suggests browsers have interest in conversational / speech interfaces
... possible way to tie into more mainstream use cases;

<JF> Philip Jägenstedt

Janina: although they perhaps place more focus on what is being spoken; seems we are hearing to bring the explainer to WICG sooner

LW: WICG is a wider review
... no harm in sending out specific requests for review from groups but WICG is also good
... doesn’t have to be an “official” document; WICG discourse CG is where new ideas get posted
... everyone here should broadcast the message to help get wide range review

Janina: pull together explainer - and propose as FPWD with a wide review

LW: clarify - FPWD of explainer for note track

Mark: spec can go in two different directions which is why we need a broader conversation
... have been proposals about speech

Janina: would love to get this done before ATIA (FPWD out for wider review)

LW: may want to share with WICG before FPWD

Janina: thanks to LW for her attendance and input today

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

Janina: please review your action items, will discuss next week
... done!

Summary of Action Items

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: 2020/01/15 17:49:57 $

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/SML/SSML/
Succeeded: s/do we just/@@/
Succeeded: s/Phillip Yergenstead ( guess at spelling)/Philip Jägenstedt/
Present: janina MichaelC Joshue108_ Matthew_Atkinson Joanmarie_Diggs Becka11y JF irfan Léonie (tink)
Regrets: Gottfried
Found ScribeNick: Joshue108
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <Joshue108> ...
ScribeNicks: Joshue108, Becka11y

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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]