<scribe> scribe: Matthew_Atkinson
Janina: Agendas starting to come together. Wiki page is up.
<becky> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2020
Janina: RQTF has a document ready
to be published. We have not granted standing permissions to
publish updated WDs. Need to create a new APA policy position
that any document that is not intended to become a
specification, once past FPWD, be publishable. Permission would
still be needed for FPWD and final draft.
... CfC on that will be published after this meeting - unless
objections?
*no objections from the group*
Janina: Need browser buy-in for Pronounciation - thus need to create more opportunities for feedback. Can we built a technical spec containing both approaches that can be passed on to WICG etc.?
Irfan: Have discussed in the TF (and with WHATWG last year). Explainer doc was based on attribute model, so have details on that. The newer approach has some potential advantages though.
Janina: Sounds like the newer approach may have potential benefits beyond accessibility (though both would work for our needs).
Irfan: is it suitable to put both
approaches in the Explainer? Could create prototypes based on
both the attribute and SSML approaches.
... ...and could host them on the Wiki/similar.
Janina: Hoping we can decide
between the two appraoches at TPAC. Need to draft the technical
approach for both.
... could publish as an editors' draft of the normative spec.
Then reach a decision as to which approach (and strip out the
part not to be used, then go to FPWD).
Irfan: *will add to TF agenda*
Neil: Would people read a full tech spec for TPAC? Could the explainer be better?
Janina: Assumption was the technical spec will not be lengthy.
Irfan: It may be.
Paul: There's a significant part of the tech spec about how the browser prepares the accessibility tree - we may not have the expertise to write this at the moment.
Janina: *suggests asking Joanie*
Irfan: Around TPAC 2019 the Explainer was created and shared with vendors. Creating a separate technical doc would take significant bandwidth.
Janina: Maybe we don't need the detailed accessibility tree section for the current audience?
Neil: Suggest we highlihght the important open questions for which we need input from specific groups. IIRC the Explainer doesn't mention things we don't know/need to find out.
Irfan: If Joanie is able to join the Pronounciation TF next week that would be helpful.
Janina: Welcome Paul, now the co-facilitator for Pronounciation.
*general support from the group :-)*
Janina: Personalization is getting closer to CR. Looking at messaging currently. Maybe early September.
Becky: We have some open issues
to be resolved too.
... e.g. internationalization
Michael: WAI IG charter: https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/228
... Seems there is some similarity with APA.
Janina: Though APA is internal;
WAI IG is more external.
... Should this be clarified?
Becky: They do talk about outreach prominently (which is a different remit to APA).
Janina: There is a ~"throughout W3C" in there, but not prominent. Could be confusing in isolation, but does the wider context (as Becky mentioned) provide sufficient clarity?
Neil: The overlap is a little confusing; clarfication as to outward-/inward-looking would be helpful.
*general support from the group*
Becky: Been following the discussion about where focus should go when a dialog closes.
<becky> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5678#issuecomment-675229182
Becky: Propose that we start with going back to the item that opened it as an initial step (could be endorsed by APA).
Paul: +1 but also that if the item is no longer there (e.g. it was deleted) we could go to an adjacent item.
Becky: does the group support the suggestion above?
Janina: sounds like if the discussion is going in this direction anyway we can +1 the comment.
Becky: *to draft a comment*
Janina: May as well run a CfC.
<janina> ~ack m
Me: Another option with a table record deletion might be to focus the table. Should we discuss on-list? Also an opportunity to reiterate how disorienting focus management can be.
<MichaelC> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811
Michael: Need to decide if we are interested in this issue.
Janina: yes
<MichaelC> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5812
Paul: Would this apply to things like iframes too? [Michael suggests commenting on the issue to check]
*Group agrees we're interested in this*
<MichaelC> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5813
*General support in the group for UAs facilitating navigation of landmarks (and headings) via keyboard shortcuts*
*We are interested in tracking*
Janina: should we look at this in Personalization?
Becky: It's already possible to
support this with an extension.
... (as you can already get the accessibility info from the
browser/DOM)
<becky> https://w3c.github.io/cg-monitor/
Neil: *has concerns as to how accurate it is [as a group leader] - how does it get its data?*
Becky: *will investigate - it has promise*
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 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: Matthew_Atkinson, paul_grenier, janina, MichaelC, becky, Irfan, Joshue, JPaton, NeilS Present: Matthew_Atkinson paul_grenier janina MichaelC becky Irfan Joshue JPaton NeilS Joshue108 Regrets: Amy Gottfried Nicolo Christos Found Scribe: Matthew_Atkinson Inferring ScribeNick: Matthew_Atkinson Found Date: 19 Aug 2020 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]