Meeting minutes
<paul_grenier> presetn+
Agenda Review & Announcements
<Fredrik> janina: nothing of particular concern.
Task Force Updates
<Fazio> coga commented on xaur
<Fredrik> janina: RQTF is working closing RAUR. Last minutes c omments coming in. Stay tuned. CFC may be coming soon.
<Fredrik> janina: Pronunciations: the group is doing its own review. Help mayb e needed form Michael next week.
<Fredrik> paul_grenier: discussions on marketing coming up.
<Fredrik> janina: presentations will be in order and be a coming concern.
<Fredrik> janina: Personalization: work is going on. Specifics can be found in the Personalization minutes / linked in the resources wiki.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: COGA is not yet published. Publishing perhaps tomorrow, or Friday.
<Fredrik> janina: watch the announcments at http://
<Fredrik> janina: Personalization will certainly be pushed for top billing.
<Fredrik> Fazio: The Big Tech Five are already using Content Usable before publication. Working with Personas for instance.
<Fredrik> janina: promises comments on David's XAUR comments.
<Fredrik> Fazio: the new maturity model will be demonstrated at tomorrow's WCAG3 meeting.
<Fredrik> Fazio: Accessibility Maturity on an Organizational Level.
<Fredrik> janina: this is actually not an APA conversation, but still interesting.
<Fredrik> janina: Next updated WCAG3 WD expected in May.
FAST Progress
<Fredrik> joconnor: FAST is making progress in the Functional Needs Silver subgroup. Fruitful discussions. Hopefully the user needs deep dive will be finished this week. Core user needs will iterate rather son-ish.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: A survey will be prepared for the Silver group and APA.
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
<MichaelC> https://
<Fredrik> MichaelC: OTOH, these specs may be too low level for us...
<Fredrik> janina: we shoudl think about if there are any accessibility specific censors to consider.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: orientation is an accessibility issue covered in WCAG. This group is more concerned with sending the correct information.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: Not sure of the timeframe for this.
<Fredrik> janina: Want to put this on RQTF. Web of Things asked to brainstorm on these things and gotfeedback on this topic. There may be accessibility-specific censors here.
<Fredrik> janina: If they send a particular string of data *for instance AAC device, like Stephen Hawking used). NOwadays that's all moving to software on tablets, not standalone devices.
<Fredrik> janina: We should add accessibility and privacy considerations to the spcification.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: I'd like to have a pretty good reason to request an addition and am on the fence.
<Fredrik> janina: Sharing that fence.
<Fredrik> janina: We should think about this, because we have a similar request form Web of Things.
<Fredrik> janina: APA looks at all of the WG specs and try to anticipate and look for accessibility specification. Other groups do that for internationalization, privacy, security and other aspects. Those are colectively called horizontal review. APA signs off on specifications on behalf of accessibility.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: will keep an eye on this.
<Fredrik> janina: We've learned to anticipate not just hte specs. NOw we've started to look at the formation or rechartering of new groups.
<Fredrik> Lionel_Wolberger: You mentioned security and privacy as the concern of other groups. Sometimes accessibility has its own perspective on privacy.
<JF> +1 - we look for "fingerprinting" concerns in specs
<Fredrik> janina: That may be the case.You shouldn't be able to figure out a user has an accessibility issue but we want the AT to work *slightly jokingly).
Horizontal Review Issues Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
<MichaelC> https://
<Fredrik> MichaelC: Thi issuye was never filed to our attention until... we don't know when.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: It was brought to our attention on filing and was closed last week. They think the issue is dealt with. Do we agree or have comments?
<Fredrik> janina: they can't really close this until we sign off / an example of the horizontal review system.
<JF> +1 to Michael - this is a WHATWG issue and we cannot block their work per-se
<Fredrik> paul_grenier: This is not a straightforward issue right now. Focusable is not even an attribute that can be easily assertained through JS. If we had an explicit IDREF, things would be easier.
<Fredrik> becky: It's also the issue of whether the activated object is still there upon closing of a dialog.
<Fredrik> Lionel_Wolberger: What I was seeing was that you could have an attribute you could pass as a "return to this place" value. The general chaos of an HTML page complicates things greatly.
<Fredrik> paul_grenier: There are tons of complexities. As an author, I know where my triggers for my mjodals are and I know where things should go when they close. You can't do this with HTML now. Making this explicit and part of the HTML attributes might do this. If we can do it without JavaScript, it would be preferable.
<Fredrik> paul_grenier: I can suggest a different approach than this heuristic approach. IF it's author controlled...
<Fredrik> janina: One of the questions that would come up is if it would be too muych of a burden on Authoring.
<Fredrik> janina: Adding this question would be really good.
<Fredrik> paul_grenier: I'll take an action item for it.
<Fredrik> JF: They're really talking about User Agent behaviours. We have no mechanism for enforcing author patterns. We see this with ARIA where ARIA has a great authoring guideline resource. We can't force anyone to use it.
<Fredrik> janina: It's a good consideration that would make a difference.
<Fredrik> janina: We do have avenues. Enforcement is not the only thing we aim for. WHATWG can't solve all of this.
<paul_grenier> I need to drop for another meeting. I'll accept a task to follow up with this issue if that's what the group decides.
<Fredrik> JF: As much as we can respond to WHATWG, we should perhaps also reach out to the ARIA/WG.
<Fredrik> janina: Let'ss let Paul look at it and we'll continue the conversation.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: We need to get better at keeping an eye on our list. We have to come in with a good reason for coming in late.
<Fredrik> becky: We were going to follow James Craig's comments and recommendations. He hasn't commented that he disagreed.
<Fredrik> janina: We'll have to be diplomatic about this.
<Fredrik> janina: You can look at stuff and not see it for a year.
<Fredrik> janina: Plese be mindful of the existing comments.
Action: Paul Grenier to review decision on dialog close focus location (https://
<trackbot> 'Paul' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., paulbohman, pgrenier).
Action: paul_grenier to review decision on dialog close focus location (https://
<trackbot> Error finding 'paul_grenier'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
<Lionel_Wolberger> PaulG
Action: paulg to review decision on dialog close focus location (https://
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2290 - Review decision on dialog close focus location (https://
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
<MichaelC> https://
<Fredrik> MichaelC: We've had some accessibility considerations and feature requests for a while. If we have any outstanding requests, we should file them.
<Fredrik> MichaelC: We seem to haveoverlooked level 2 of this spec // time to double down?
Action: Fredrik to review Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials Level 3 (https://
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2291 - Review web authentication: an api for accessing public key credentials level 3 (https://
CSS Comment -- Ready for CfC?
<MichaelC> action-2291: https://
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2291 Review web authentication: an api for accessing public key credentials level 3 (https://
<Fredrik> janina: Amy sent her regrets. We have candidate comments on our list form Amy. If we wanted to refine them, this owuld be our chance.
<Fredrik> janina: I can put them up this afternoon for a CFC.
<becky> https://
<Fredrik> becky: short recap of Amy's comments.
<Fredrik> janina: Turning this into a CFC. Due out this afternoon.
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
<Fredrik> Time is now an issue.
<Fredrik> Lionel_Wolberger: needing more time, a week or two more, for tthe action.
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
<MichaelC> https://
<Fredrik> becky: There is an API being added to Page Visibility. The idea is that applicatiosn could conserve energy. There are some considerations ot this. They asked us specifically how to deal with screen magnificcation. They have added A11y considerations to this version.
<Fredrik> janina: We'll thank them for reaching out.
<Fredrik> janina: Thanks everyone for a useful hour!
<JF> bye all