<JF> agenda
<scribe> scribe: becky
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html
BG: for charter we need to list all of our rec. track deliverables for the next two years; format is within the link above
LS: do we want to do a second module?
JS: we need to continue to list
module 1 until it is complete
... brin module 1 to Rec. status
JF: is that the goal - are we
going to rec. or CR - get all the way through in the next two
years
... suggest get modules 2 and 3 into some kind of rec. track
status
Roy: we do have FPWD of those two modules
JS: need to provide the basics and Michael will polish
LS: do we have people interested enough to implement the next two modules
JS: I think we believe publishing is a first rank consumer of these specs?
CL: yes, that is still an interest but focus more on audio and fixed layout
<JF> Module 2 and https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/findable-help??
CL: most fixed layout books are childrens' or manga
<LisaSeemanKest> john...exactly
JS: need to come up with these soon, APA needs to have charter complete by end of January
LS: we need to reach out for
implementations soon - we can ask for interest in module 2 and
3 as well
... first of year we need to find people for implementations of
module 1; I have a few leads
... some legal problems in the large companies, if they know
about it then they can potentially be responsible for
implementing
CL: Maybe this needs to be
brought up within the Accessibility TF of publishers working
group; I can suggest a presentation about personalization to
this group
... giving an internal presentation at Benetech this week, I'll
show video demo and other high level info and will introduce
other modules and ask for feedback
JF: looking at module 2 there are
2 types of help - there are types of help and values for help -
there is loose assoc. back to WCAG 2.2 on findable help
... if author tags the help it can then be exposed by
AT/extension and thus becomes findable
... what type of help can just be announced; but there is a
potential fork; I would push for module 2; not so much for
module 3 until WCAG 3
LS: mentions personalization videos and offers to be available for demo
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/apa-personalization.html
<LisaSeemanKest> has the video
CL: agree with JF, I believe
module 2 has more potential than module 3; mod. 2 aligns with
WCAG 2.2; believe we can get to CR in charter timeframe
... There are some DPUB aria roles but these types of help are
in publication
Personalization video: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/apa-personalization.html
Pronunciation video: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/apa-pronunciation.html
JS: If we are not chartered for a rec. track doc. we can't work on it. Although I agree module 3 in the next 2 years is probably not likely
JF: but how do we keep module 3 in "maintenance mode"?
JS: we can put it in Note track for now
JF: we don't want to lose module 3 so need to make sure we keep it alive. Agree we should focus on module 2 for next charter timeframe but keep module 3 alive
LS: don't want to put things in our charter that we don't do. Can we just say research into module 2/3
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2018/08/apa-charter
all: we all agree that we are way behind on content module
JS: keep a lifeline to module 3; will discuss at APA plan meeting;
JF: is it reasonable to take module 2 to CR in two years; believe it is a reasonable goal
JS: would feel better if we had
representatives from browsers and more people from EPUB
tools
... would also like to include low vision and other scope as we
recruit
SS: def. finish module 1, keep making progress on 2, and keep module 3 "alive"
SS: discussion of using data- at CR
JS: Michael would prefer getting
a WHAT-WG prefix before CR; and until we can show
implementations we are unlikely to get a reserved prefix
... so implementations are key;
JF: perhaps extend invitations to others - James Craig, Alice B, Anne K, etc to attend a meeting so show the demos
JS: do we think the implementations are mature enough to go to WHAT-WG
JF: look to begin to coordinate a
meeting in the new year
... I believe that our implementations using data- are
sufficient
JS: I don't know if these are sufficient
JF: right, so this is a good reason to ask others
JS: do we need a meeting or is an email exchange sufficient?
SS: will take this up in January to get the ball rolling to look for a prefix and whether or not our current implementations are sufficient
<sharon_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Dec/0006.html
JS: basically awknowledging Alice's input
CL: I did experiment with prefers reduced motion a bit but it didn't help on many webites
JF: There is also work to be done in the code; this is similar to providing alternative low band width images in the past; developer/author has to specify the no motion alternative for media queries to work
ss: are we okay with the response
that Janina wrote? I can put this into issue 476
... I will handle putting the response in the issue
bg: audio or video example require JS
<sharon_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Dec/0004.html
bg: not sure how to address? Is
just a written exmaple with no code enough?
... reviews examples in the email
JF: not sure how an author can impact haptic feedback, that is more of a device feature
JS: there is a vibration api
bg: do we need to add audible, visual, haptic, other rather than just sensory?
SS: we have talked about that in the past; this would help distinguish from media queries
bg: are we okay not having code?
<JF> Notifications API (parent to Vibrations API): https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#alerting-the-user
JS: I think we are okay for now not having code (others agree)
JF: notification is scripted and
there is a dictionary of notification options, etc
... we want the user to be able to request an alternative form
of notification
JS: including map one kind into another
discussion of taking to ARIA but concern they will feel it is out of scope because it is not screen reader specific
ss: are these examples enough for now?
JS: yes, it is a step in the right direction, may want to beef up with code in future
bg: so, keep as just sensory for now?
CL: yes, believe so
bg: I will put this into a branch and pull request
JF: suggest including a ref. to notification spec.
No meeting on Dec 21 and 28
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) Succeeded: s/do we/do we have/ Succeeded: s/Anna/Anne/ Succeeded: s/the/there/ Present: becky LisaSeemanKest JF janina CharlesL Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky Found Date: 14 Dec 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]