Meeting minutes
Shawn: Next meeting in 2 weeks.
<tzviya> Date: 2021-02-24
Scribe, rrsagent, agenda check, confirming next meeting, present+
Reminder WCAG 3.0 Review WCAG 3.0 FPWD , Introduction , Blog , Call for Review , Comments to date
Shawn: WCAG 3 review is on now. Closing is this Friday.
Shawn: Make sure folks know that, and I'll send an update, tweet and email. Steve is helping with images. Steve, if you can hold off...
Shawn: Any questions or comments?
George: With the scoring, after my reading of it... I see you can't have any critical errors and be bronze. There is this scoring scheme that I like.
George: Is that exposed to end users, or just a mechanism for people doing an evaluation to provide feedback to owner of content.
Jeanne: It's optional. If people decide to expose they can, but there's no forcing to expose, which would require regulation.
Shawn: Same situation we have right now. Some require accessibility statements, some don't.
George: I think providing a number would be really hard to do. We do it in our epub testing of reading systems. It might be one of the mistakes we are making.
George: We have 70%, 50%, 80%, but they don't really reflect the functionality. It's not like it fails at 80%.
Janina: Interesting. epubs are pretty stable content.
George: We do the reading systems. Epub content is maybe easier to do with scoring system.
Tzviya: Adding to George, what started to happening with the reading system on platforms, in systems it got competitive. Initially it was useful, but when we get into the finer points and competition, there's a level of absurdity to it.
Tzviya: Jeanne made comment on how valuable these numbers are. I think it's worth considering what these numbers mean, and experience in publishing is informative.
Jeanne: We are trying to take that number and turn it into a meaningful level. Instead of "84" we say "I have bronze, silver, or gold" level. I think that may address the irrelevance between 82 and 83.
Shawn: Good to share, George I heard that your number may have been a mistake. I hope you continue to share this info with the Silver group.
Shawn: On what worked and what didn't work. It's also useful to have in a github issue, having that info available.
Jeanne: It's great to have written backups from other groups.
George: We've been identifying if it's the reading system or AT that's at fault.
George: On content side I think it's easier... if you are looking at alt text, you can say "this is zero, three, four", that's easier to do than some other things.
George: I think that exposing these numbers is not a good idea.
Shawn: This is good feedback, be sure to put it in a github issue.
Tzviya: George and I can collaborate on a response.
Shawn: Anything else on WCAG 3? Remember to point to intro page.
Shawn: That's where we keep updates.
Shawn: George and Tzviya, if you can't get to it by Friday, let them know that you'll be sending soon.
Upcoming work and publications https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
Shawn: Several things up, some are on my todo list.
Shawn: Planning upcoming announcements.
Shawn: There's some coga and aria, ciricula... feel free to update this.
Shawn: If there's anything new, we can do that here, otherwise we'll follow up with emails.
Shawn: Handing off to Judy.
Judy: Did we address first and 2nd agenda items?
Shawn: Yes.
Judy: This agenda is popping up in a few different ways. With regard to WCAG 3 and with regard to other testing generally of w3c specs.
Judy: Including when there are accessibility features in other specs. My question is, how much of a plan and issue is that for groups here.
James: This isn't exactly an accessibility issue with other specs, but privacy raised with aria about implications across various specs in the web echo system.
James: We see the issue in other specs. They want a TF to compile other places and flagging them where there are privacy implications.
James: Impacts various specs.
James: Need to decide how to approach.
James: Aria wg may have the right people with right expertise.
James: but not in our scope.
Tzviya: An issue that W3C needs to address. Can you James send me a link?
Tzviya: I'd like to review and understand the issues.
James: It's in aria repository, will paste link here.
Jemma: I've pasted.
James: covers an example issue.
<Jemma> https://
Judy: If we notice intersections with other areas, privacy security device independence, however these issues come to light, W3C is responsible to follow up on these.
Judy: I understand that this may be wider than aria responsibilities. W3C ensures an interoperable web for all.
Judy: We are responsible to these issues. Some examples are perfect for prior conversations from days ago, where ai bias can impact people with disabilities.
Judy: If there are behaviors on a website where an individual with a disability is an outlier presenting non-typical interactions, then people may inadvertently get flagged as fraudulent.
Judy: It is an issue that falls under accessibility, might be AI Bias.
Judy: What do we do about it? We can bring it back to another part of W3C and inform them of the issue we identified. Might be TAG, maybe another group.
James: Request was to put in a flag in the specifications.
Judy: Not necessarily the best way to handle.
James: Might be interesting to determine where this might be occurring.
Judy: People with disabilities are getting shut out in more and more ways, and aria group is discovering the breadcrumbs. I want to take this to the strategy discussion. Might go to TAG or PM.
Judy: It's a useful intersection to be aware of.
Judy: Flagging in spec may not be best approach.
Judy: Anything else?
Judy: Brent for WCAG 2 series, there's additional work coming out of ACT TF with conformance that may be relevant for testing approaches.
Brent: We have power and heat!
Judy: There's 2.0 series, and the 3.0. if groups haven't reviewed yet, please look at it carefully, including the conformance model, and think what you might need to do.
Judy: AGWG too, hopefully you are getting comments on conformance model.
Judy: It's out there to receive such feedback.
Judy: Then there's also... when any spec gets developed, what are the testing plans for accessibility features in other areas. When APA comments on other specs, sometimes they don't want to add a specific section.
Judy: Janina, is that a concern? What are the testing needs built into our guidelines and specs, and impacts on other specs.
Judy: Do you all have what you need testing wise?
George: Before you joined, we were commenting on the scoring, the numbers. In my opinion it's great for content. But maybe not something we recommend be exposed.
George: To end users, maybe good feedback mechanism, but it can be difficult for end users to get a handle on.
Judy: Yes. Your group, the epub group, when looking at 3.0 fpwd conformance model, you are trying to figure out if it's realistic?
George: We have not as a group reviewed this and come to consensus. It's been presented to us, I don't see that the publishing industry is going to vote in a block or comment in a block.
Judy: Are there any concerns that relate to context or perspective of epublishing?
Tzviya: Jeanne did a great preso. This was the first exposure and understanding. Hopefully people can get comments in by Friday, may take some individuals more time.
Tzviya: some may not meet the deadline.
Judy: It's absorbing a different model.
George: I think publishing industry is closer than others.
George: We've been working on this for a long time, and we've got the smart tool that helps us evaluate, that walks you through the qualitative analysis of alt text, for example.
Judy: Maybe that's something... how much of an indepth discussion would be needed? Could we do it as part of this meeting in 2-4 weeks?
Tzviya: Invite Matt.
George: May be best approach. We have not exposed the scoring thing, it's been done privately, but not publicly.
George: You've seen the reports Tzviya. We can invite Matt.
Judy: Is it smaller or bigger than a bread box?
Janina: If I'm hearing correctly, I think that there is a fair amount of correspondence for the conformance model, and what epub has had for some time.
Janina: There's a desire to provide feedback based on lessons learned, and what you might do differently if started from scratch. Is that an accurate interpretation?
Jeanne: Shawn and I were exchanging emails, we would like to invite to a Silver call.
Janina: that makes a lot of sense.
George: Having a broader... Tzviya, Charles has brought forward somethings with scoring, Avneesh...
George: Matt is wonderful.
Judy: Brent I keep thinking of EO angle. Whatever WAI does on net generation model, somebody will have to make sure the explanation makes sense. EO will have feedback and role in this.
Judy: I hope you grab early opportunities to hear the evolution of the model and help make sure the field understands it.
Brent: We are probably not giving it the attention it needs because of current projects. We have been following though, and we have looked at it in the WG.
Brent: We also know that it is in our pipeline to start working on those bits and pieces of language.
Brent: Not sure when... I'm hearing you say "don't wait too long".
Judy: I thought I was saying something else, waiting for when you have time is one thing, but 3.0 has it's own timeline, and maybe feedback on how understandable is a useful interum thing that EO can and do, and can't be deferred.
Judy: There's concerns about feasibility of the conformance model. Lot's of effort went into it. There's a timely feedback that may be useful.
Brent: I'll bring into our next planning meeting.
Judy: Janina, the APA related question... once WAI helps other groups get horizontal reviews, do we have any idea how these are tested. I think the answer is "no", and we may need to move that to a "yes", but hard to do.
Judy: maybe we can park it.
Judy: We don't have a testing loop.
Judy: We might be missing things because of that.
Janina: That will take some conversation.
Judy: Absolutely.
Tzviya: What happened to fast documentation?
Janina: It's coming.
Judy: Josh's time is working with APA on that.
Judy: You can use it as is, but we want it to grow from here.
Janina: Should change soon.
Janina: Pushing in wed calls. There's a wcag 3 dependency as well.
Jeanne: And we have bodies working on it.
Janina: from both groups.
Judy: Hoping that people are thinking of these things. Sounds like it's working.
Questions of testing across W3C specs and across platforms
Meet with Immersive captions for the Web CG? (Captions in VR and AR)
Judy: There is a community group that's been going for over a year and a half. Great group of researchers, focusing on AR and captions.
Judy: Including from deaf community, and businesses that have been devoting time. A lot of WAI work doesn't have much involvement from people who are deaf.
Judy: I've been asked about opportunities to get involved. I spent 15 minutes and they wanted to hear more. For next Wed thinking of inviting people from different groups to meet up.
Judy: If you are free next Wed (3rd) at noon eastern, that would be their regular meeting time. We could do a side meeting.
Judy: Anybody interested?
Judy: Would be opportunity to engage, and they may have individuals with specialties in your area.
Jeanne: I'm interested.
Tzviya: May I send Wendy from epub?
Judy: Yes.
Judy: Anybody else?
Jemma: I'm interested, what's the group name?
Judy: It's a community group, Immersive Captions for the Web.
Judy: Are there any aria connections that are needed?
James: Sounds interesting, there may be requirements that come out of it.
James: At this timeslot?
Judy: Noon eastern next week, every other Wed.
Judy: Next week this will be the focus.
Brent: Are you saying to attend that meeting next week to see if there's interest in people who want to join the efforts of the working group?
Judy: Christopher P... has been having this group focus on what the issues are in standards, and what are the research needs and considerations for captions and AR. Very fascinating.
Judy: What's the cognitive load, etc. There's a wonderful community that has developed. They are interested in other arias of WAI work.
Judy: Maybe "EO" will say "this is the kind of things we are working on"...
Judy: It's an info session.
Brent: If people are interested, are we able to provide the accommodations for participation?
Judy: We don't have some things as well defined as I would like, but we will figure that out.
Judy: Shouldn't be a barrier.
Brent: I want to make sure we would have the necessary accommodations. I don't want to turn anybody away.
Judy: Working on improved guidance.
Brent: Next week at 11 central. I can be available.
Judy: Just sign up for Immersive captions group, and I'll let Christopher know.
Input on TPAC format for 2021 3Q; # of weeks; include or remove WG meetings?
Judy: Input on... we are working on that issue...
Any input on accessible conference platforms?
Judy: W3C is looking at changing TPAC format, it will be virtual again in 3rd Q 2021.
Judy: What we did in 2020 was too long and wore people out. Now various discussions on what we might be able to drop.
Judy: Q will come to advisory committee soon.
Judy: Everybody chair level should get the same questions. That's an FYI, and will be an input opportunity.
Judy: Curious about how much people want the wg meetings as well as joint meetings.
George: Last week there was a conf that went 3 for hour sessions, this week is a 3-4 day conference.
George: It's a bit of a problem to have to drop items from the calendar. There are things that we need to do during the week. Shouldn't be booking 4-5 hours a day 5 days the week.
George: Should be stretched out for a longer period of time. Doesn't seem to work.
Janina: APA found joint meetings workable. Noting what George said, I think we packed it in 3 days. We did have 3 meetings one day, but we didn't try to do all day long events.
Judy: Any comments on TPAC and gathering with others?
Brent: My perspective... it's a bit different, I would prefer that it run similar to F2F, 2 days of intense day long meetings, and then TPAC day of meetings, put all in one week, not spread out.
Chuck: My perspective is that for whatever reason 4 or more hours really drains a person.
Brent: Rather it be compressed.
Judy: See if you have a feedback opportunity. You may have some communication on that.
Judy: Last Q, any experience with accessible conference platforms, could you raise your hand? I'll follow up with you. W3C wants to evaluate different options.
Brent: My co uses microsoft teams, we do use some zoom too.
Judy: Not asking about video conference, more like an event platform. There are many recent startups.
Judy: Almost all have some accessibility issues.
Brent: Tap Sharon.
Judy: I know Shawn has done some stuff in this space. She may have some feedback. Thanks all.