Meeting minutes
Judy: confirm next meeting date...
Judy: 2 weeks from now, but not sure which day or time until we get results of doodle poll.
Judy: 2 weeks from now, day and time tbd, upon completion of doodle poll.
<janina> +1
Survey on general availability for rescheduling this meeting https://doodle.com/poll/g2wnn6ccxs3ziazs
Judy: Fill out the doodle poll as if it's a sample week, and we'll review the results.
Upcoming work and publications https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
Judy: Looking for updates to the published material.
Judy: At this point there's tentatively a wcag 3.0 publication next week, but can't be confirmed yet.
Judy: Chuck or Rachael....
George: In the publishing we have a call for review of the user experience guide for meta data which now some of the distributors like vital source and redshelf
<Judy> Here's the right link: https://
George: Are providing accessibility meta data. They are using the draft in their presentation. This translates schema.org things like access mode to screen reader friendly.
George: There's a call for review before Jan 21.
Judy: Is there any particular groups that should be emphasized for reviewing the doc?
George: Anybody in library space and publishing would be the main ones.
George: It has broad applicability, but developed in publishing space. I don't know who would be other appropriate groups.
Jeanne: I think there's a lot in the planning side, but not in the moment.
Jeanne: We probably should we review it. I'll add to my to do list.
Jeanne: Can you (george) provide a link?
George: I'll send the request to this group.
Judy: If you have stuff in your materials on publishing, if your planning section is up to date from publishing folks point of view. Can you exchange a link with George?
Judy: Where publishing shows up in your planning. Fair request for you George? Silver plans have some stuff on publishing. Maybe it could be reviewed and ensure it's up to date.
George: Matt's doing that.
Judy: Works for me. Rachael...
Rachael: We can add in content usable for Coga, probably March timeframe.
Judy: That would be great, let's get it on the list. I put the mistaken link in the topic line, I put in another link. Would you go in and plug in the date yourself?
Rachael: happy to.
Judy: Any others? Or anybody with content that has been published and should be reviewed?
<silence>
(Continuing, for those not responded yet) Your groups' priorities for 2021, and other round-table items?
Judy: In the December meetings we talked about group priorities for 2021 or communicate with other task forces... that was very helpful.
Judy: If there's anyone at this meeting that didn't have a chance to talk about updates, this is the time.
Topic on improving asynchronous communication
Judy: I snatched this out of a thread that went by yesterday on some of the wai lists.
Judy: Jeanne I think you started it, and I haven't monitored today. Since it's tooling and communication, I wanted to invite you to say something about it here.
Judy: And also to see what you are getting out of thread and where it's going.
Jeanne: This came out of conversation about rescheduling, and the challenge of 24 time zones. It was suggested in the group that we look more at enhancing our asynchronous communications.
Jeanne: Engineers in the group jumped to tools. I sent out an email asking for use cases.
Jeanne: People jumped right into the tools we could use. There was a spirited conversation about the accessibility of one of the tools.
Jeanne: Various and wide ranging opinions. I want to continue to focus on the process. I believe this is a process issue and not a tooling issue.
Jeanne: What we've always said in Silver is that you can use whatever tool works with you and we will figure out how to integrate it.
Jeanne: If we go to another tool, that will complicate things. I want to examine from a process point of view.
Jeanne: How can we encourage asynchronous communications. I think it will become easier when we publish.
Jeanne: Does that answer?
Judy: Yes, perfect. That's what I was hoping for. I want to check with other folks on the call. Is this an issue relevant to other groups?
Judy: Or have you figured out something good enough, or have suggestions to share?
janina: This came up from some other direction in RQTF. It's not tooling and process, but we range over multiple topics. We get different participation for different topics.
janina: Do we have a better way to say "group a is moving to topic x", maybe we could announce that and invite participation.
janina: And leverage people's specific interests, and they may leave when that topic is done.
George: Are we talking about "slack" or something else?
Judy: We are talking about tools and processes in general.
George: I'm using slack ok.
George: With a screen reader, and I have provided some tech support. We did an accessibility review, found issues, but they can be worked around.
Judy: Back to janina's comment, I got a picture of a trafgic cop or concierge. Someone who helps people find the right things. Came up at TPAC.
Judy: "where do I find the conversations I'm looking for?". Needs to be an interface that helps get people in the right rooms. Could be event specific as well as group specific.
Judy: That angle may be different from what Jeanne was thinking about. Jeanne do you see some intersection between you and Janina?
jeanne: yes, we have that issue as well. We formed community group to give lightweight interface for experts.
Jeanne: We still have challenge of how do they know what we are working on. If they contact me I can help, but that's heavy overhead.
Judy: Just an idea for reaction. Maybe talk to Shawn Henry to do something on the website. "Who's working on..." or "where can I find work on..." What group do I go to for this topic... I don't think we have that kind of search.
Judy: If we had something like that, could we keep it up to date? Keep don't like keeping up "current events" on home pages.
Judy: I was trying to make a mild statement about that.
Janina: Current event is "shelter in place".
Judy: A search function like that would be as worthwhile as efforts to keep it updated, unless there was an automated approach.
Judy: In the meantime a human supported search process.
George: I don't think a word search or bot following a list would fly.
Judy: I don't want to take too long on this...
Chuck: I think that Jeanne's efforts may be helpful
… especially if focused on the use cases
… otherwise it's just speculating
… support Jeanne's approach of gathering data
<Chuck_> Jeanne: That was Michael Cooper's approach. Get data first.
James: I heard complaints about updating homepage. I don't know how that is suppose to happen. How does one do that?
Judy: Michael, can you respond to James?
MC: What page?
Judy: His home page, current events.
MC: Granting access takes average access of 2 years, we have failed in the past. What we should do is put the content into github and make it appear on the wai home page.
mc: I could manually port, not hard, but I'd have to sit down to do it.
Judy: Did you have conversation with Shawn Henry about tooling? She was going to see if you could switch to another way. Intent would be it was github backed.
Judy: Manual updates are not your favorite thing to do.
Judy: Can you take an action to make a github editable by chairs process?
MC: I can do it my way easily.
Judy: James, your way to do it is to tell your team contact what you want...
James: That's a bit of a pain.
MC: I'll set up a place on github for this.
MC: We'll worry about Shawn's thing later.
Judy: OK, thanks for the compromise.
Judy: Some people use those current things, others are looking for improved asynchronous communications and tools support. Kind of things that George did.
Judy: That's really sometimes valuable information. Tricky to share it if it hasn't been reviewed fully.
Judy: Any thoughts on how to easily share the info or find pockets of people who have done the reviews? George or anyone...
George: It wasn't a formal analysis or review. I would hate to trash a company. They do have an accessibility group working on this.
+1 to not disparaging a company.
Judy: That's our dilemma. Nobody has time to do a good review and maintain.
Judy: Leaves us w/o mechanism to share information.
Judy: Chuck made suggestion that we support Jeanne's efforts to gather data. Sounds like it can move forward w/o problem. Let's leave it at that.
Judy: I'll keep thinking on the issue.
Judy: I was in a US access board meeting about virtual access. They chose to openly discuss 7-8 platforms. They gave a bunch of disclaimers.
APA Community Groups check
Judy: Janina, I didn't give you a heads up on this. Any community group that needs feedback?
Janina: haven't looked recently, been heads down in chartering. A bunch of new poeple have joined. Hopefully will have a report late feb or early march.
Judy: I don't know if you are in the process where you can have confidence of making the date.
Janina: We are on time with our draft.
Judy: And I support your goal. Anything else on APA?
Checking for architectural issues to coordinate with non-WAI W3C groups
Judy: This make take some background.
Janina: We have a longstanding one that APA inherited. Accessibility violates IETF's HTTP protocol.
Janina: That protocol says you are not allowed to transform content.
Janina: Should have caveates around. I understand "don't change everything because you think it's fake news".
Janina: We want to raise with IETF. We had a liaison in the past.This shouldn't be a violation.
James: Is there a written issue?
Janina: There is from way back when.
James: Before my time.
MC: Issue got migrated to another repository. There's an HTTP Header saying you aren't allowed to modify the content, and there are accessibility remediation tools.
James: OK, talking about clients.
Judy: Janina, what would be a good way to encourage progress?
Janina: Who's our liaison?
James: I thought this was an issue for things other than Accessibility, that do similar things.
Janina: Probably so.
<Judy> https://
Judy: It's just w3.org/liaisons is the shortcut.
Judy: There's a generic liaison, and a flock of sub-liaison's.
Judy: My tendency would be for me to mention with Philippe, and have him mention to Wendy, i'll speak with Wendy next Tuesday. I want to make sure I've the right pointer for it.
Judy: Did you tell us how to find, or drop a link?
Judy: Can Michael come up with a link? And can I have a couple of talking points?
James: With something so old, should we not do some due diligence? Become more aware of the details are.
Judy: Can James and Janina talk?
<James and Janina> technical talk.
Janina: Solid point. We'll do our due diligence in APA and then come back.
Judy: So one topic, but needs some homework. Any other topics on accessibility and any other parts of w3c architecture? There's been an absence of discussion on this.
George: On the IETF item, their definition of "transforms" may have changed. Re-investigate both sides.
George: It's hard to believe that you couldn't speak or put in braille.
Judy: But we have to do plain language summaries, and be enabled without flagging errors.
Janina: We have emerging spec on transformations as well.
Judy: James and Janina, when can you come back to us?
Janina: A month or so. We have a few youngsters with lots of promise. We can get someone to talk it on.
James: I assume there will be a github issue, can you tag me?
Janina: Delighted to.
Judy: We'll review mid-feb meeting.
Action: Janina and James bring back the IETC content transformation issue at mid-Feb meeting
<trackbot> 'Janina' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., jsajka, sajkaj).
FYI WAI IG rechartered, are WAI Groups updating list and watching to catch any issues?
Judy: We've got 6 responses already.
Judy: BTW, we got another group rechartered. WAI Interest group. Not as dramatic as a wg, but we got a formal objection, related to duration.
Judy: We clarified function. I want to check that each of the groups is taking a look at WAI Interest Group.
Judy: Katie not on the call, Shawn and I are team contacts. Shawn looks at the list more regularly.
Judy: Does each group have a person assigned to watch?
Janina: I'm tracking for APA. RQTF discussions came out of a WAI IG post and thread.
Chuck: I think I'm watching this list.
James: I'm not on the mailing list, not watching it.
James: Should be.
Judy: This is a good task to delegate. I know that there has been some difficulty getting people to pitch in, but could you ask?
James: Somebody on this list who is involved with us would bring it to our attention. It wouldn't get missed.
James: I don't think it's an issue. Informally I think we are covered. I'll raise it in a meeting in the future.
Judy: Might not get volunteers, but it's an entry way task that's easy for which to volunteer.
James: I have confidence that someone is already monitoring.
Judy: And good way to thank and recognize somebody. Jeanne I'm expecting that once 3.0 gets published you'll be keeping an eye on it.
Jeanne: I love the idea of delegating.
Judy: Stepping stone task. Good to know who's doing it.
James: Amount of traffic is very low.
James: Accessibility slack as a lot of info.
Judy: Thanks for that.
Judy: Strategy funnel I mention is now the strategy incubation pipeline.
Judy: This is where draft workshops get developed, and horizontal review areas look at this. Draft charters come through here unless a renewal.
Judy: Fully public. If you are in your group and thinking that somebody needs to be working on something not appropriate for your group, this is a place to look.
Judy: The topic of digital assistance is on that list.
Judy: Smart agents... that's the kind of thing that comes up. Any q or comments?
Janina: It's of high relevance to our pronunciation work.
Janina: We've mentioned, and we are very integrated.
Judy: That's why I wanted to raise it. George you are looking for intersections, this would be a good place to scan.
Judy: Anything else on this topic?