<janina> Date: 16 Dec 2020
<becky> scribe: becky
JS: stock agenda with a few addn.
items added to agenda
... this is last meeting of the year, hearing no
announcements
JS: pronunciation had a great
meeting with the publishing group; they will provide examples
of items that do not pronounce well
... suggest that personalization may also want to meet with
publishing in the future
... work is happening in our task forces
Irfan: agree it was a very productive meeting for pronunciation
JS: found we have common interest
in proper/good pronunciation, not just screen readers but
impacts other areas as well
... will follow up with them in January, nothing specific
scheduled, yet
... Neil's name got brought up when pub. group asked for math
examples
JS: discussed in apa leadership
call; would like JF to create a first draft for what goes in
the standard A11y considerations
... want the a11y section to be enforced by respec. Need a
template that a user can follow, go through step by step and
throw away parts that don't apply;
JF: does make sense to have a template that starts off with a set of questions
JS: this is the intent of FAST; some groups are using and giving feedback. We are thinking of having cut and paste statements that can be part of the A11y section template.
JF: if longer term goal is that FAST generates a11y statement it makes more sense to get that completed rather than a collection of statements. seems to be ultimately doing the same thing
JS: FAST approach will take longer; would be good to get the a11y statement requirement started
Amy: I was thinking about something like this when reviewing specs; I see sections for privacy concerns in the appendix, shouldn't there by an a11y section?
JS: this is what JF recommended
JF: I'm happy to work on something but I feel like it needs to be coordinated with FAST
MC: I see FAST and the a11y
statement both being important; FAST will help people
understand and generate; but we want to make sure that the a11y
section gets included and enforced
... want an expectation that the a11y section should be in the
document by default, groups have to make a decision to remove
rather than to include (opt out vs opt in)
... will be putting dedicated time with Josh into FAST in the
new year.
JS: the complementary nature of FAST and a11y statement is important
JF: willing to work with Josh to understand FAST better; and will take a look at FAST and report back in January
<scribe> ACTION: JF to review FAST and report back in January
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2275 - Review fast and report back in january [on John Foliot - due 2020-12-23].
MA: want to +1 making a11y section a requirement
PG: maybe this can read like a disclaimer, "This document as been review for accessibility...." and perhaps include a link to APA github to file an issue
JS: that is sort of what FAST is supposed to do
PG: language in the published document would have a link to apa github so people reading the document can file an issue
JS: a11y statement would have a link to APA github to file an issue
BG: some confusion about issue going to apa
JF: concerned about how to actually get all of the information we need in the github issue
MC: there is some tooling being developed to help with that
JF: I would think the issue would be filed with the working group and tagged with APA at the time of creating the statement
MC: tooling already exists for what JF described
NS: is idea that the final document would have the link to file an issue?
JS: yes
JS: our TF with normative
deliverables are working on that, also need to document the
non-normative ones; still need to start addressing within
RQTF
... we don't expect COGA to be part of new charter; if they
want to continue as part of APA then COGA needs to send
representative to participate in APA meetings
... everyone in APA needs to review the scope; we will be
focusing on this in January and will issues a CFC before
forwarding to mgmt.
JS: MC reported on this earlier; he and Josh will be working on this; FAST has 2 parts - how to write accessibility into your spec and a tool with a set of questions to help a WG determine if there are a11y concerns. We will help them to resolve the ones that come up.
MC: no new charters this week
MC: nothing that we haven't already looked at
<amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-highlight-api-1/
AC: looked at CSS custom highlight api module level 1. This is just an extension of customizing the highlight pseudo element;
JS: asked for an heard no
objections to signing off on this spec
... asks how we sign off
MC: if spec is in our tracker, we
close the item and it allows the doc. to proceed with TR
... if it is just an issue, we need to indicate the we have
reviewed with a short statement
PG: but can't developers cause problems with implementation even if spec seems okay?
MC: yes, would be good to have a
general accessibility statement about some of the CSS levels
that people can link to
... in the spec.
JS: this would go in the accessibility considerations section
AC: so we can sign off on the spec but include a11y considerations for implementors
<amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-conditional-3/
AC: also looked at CSS conditional rules module level 3: This is a CR snapshot
MC: snapshot indicates that this is a stable enough version for implementors to use but may be some interoperability issues
<amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-conditional-4/
AC: I didn't see any issues in this module; The level 4 version is still being worked on - not much to look on; targeting extensiats to the @ rule
JS: perhaps look at this again in 6 - 12 months
PG: suggests asking what the timeline is for level 4
MC: CSS member is generally good at noticing when things need to be brought to our attention
AC: so need to sign off on level 3; level 4 we should revisit
<amy_c> https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues/31
MC: will include that on our wiki page
<amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/geometry-1/
AC: review geometry interfaces
level 1 - this is from dec. 2018; do we still need to
review?
... it is at CR since 2018; is there any reason to keep this
open?
JS: yes is late but probably not too late if there is a serious issue
AC: Editor's draft was last updated in March, 2020
NS: not finding anything a11y
related with a quick review
... is low level
JS: don't see any issues signing off; thanks to Amy
JS: I have worked on some;
contacted John Rochford about one today; looked at 2226 and
didn't find anything - it was only about card processing;
... 2264 - just a WD from i18n for specifying locales and
languages; probably important for all of our TF; there is
follow up work there
PG: I had submitted to the list
JS: yes, need to contextualize
the comments - refer to the actual spec. in the response with
links. Then can issue a CFC
... in January
<MichaelC> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/6218
MC: Consider specifying heuristics for when <ul> represents a list; comments by a11y knowledgable folks
JS: we should track
MC: Ian Jabobs sent a message to
the CG that because of no action it is going to be closed
... there is a Web payments WG
... we wanted to work on an a11y statement as part of the
community group; Are we okay with the CG being closed?
... hearing no objections to closing
<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/scribe2/master/sample-public.html
MC: generator will create a new
format of minutes; this will be used in January unless we opt
out
... some other groups are opting out because unsure of a11y
issues; a11y issues don't seem much difference than current
format
... will be automatically switched to new format in January
unless we opt out
JF: has there been a formal review?
MC: no, we did a quick review at apa plan - some issues with color
JF: two icons with no visible text icons - the clock goes to the agenda, not the time; there is a requirement for visible label
JS: sounds like we are opting out until they fix a few things
<paul_grenier> I also need to drop.
JF: I do like the way it is laid out
discussion of the new layout
<janina> scribe: janina
<scribe> ACTION: JF to review new minutes template for accessibility issues due 20210113
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2276 - Review new minutes template for accessibility issues due 20210113 [on John Foliot - due 2020-12-23].
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/on/at/ Succeeded: s/fols/folks/ Default Present: janina, JPaton, JF, becky, IrfanA, Matthew_Atkinson, paul_grenier, NeilS Present: janina JPaton JF becky IrfanA Matthew_Atkinson paul_grenier NeilS Regrets: Gottfried Ela Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Scribes: becky, janina ScribeNicks: becky, janina Found Date: 16 Dec 2020 People with action items: jf 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]