Meeting minutes
<Troubleshooting issues with captions>
Joint working group meetings and break-out sessions planned for TPAC 2021.
JW: When we last discussed this APA was planning and co-ordinating
<janina> https://
We were to work those out - update from Janina.
JS: This will be the ongoing meeting link
It will be updated during TPAC, contain meeting info etc - please do bookmark.
<Janina gives overview of doc>
We will add Google calendar links etc
There are proposed sessions in this doc.
We've asked Timed-text group if they want a session on the Synchronization Accessibility User Requirements
We hope to be at FPWD or beyond at TPAC
https://
JS: We also have proposed longer meetings - one on the future of a11y APIs - there are some concerns over their potential end of life
Discussions on how frameworks would handle this - or what next gen A11y APIs need to look like
There are also near term requirements out of our pronunciation task force that we need to bridge
Relating to TTS specs etc
We also have breakouts - an introduction to APA publications
We may need more time to discuss various specs and our extensive user requirement documents
Should that be two sessions? Need more time?
COGA, will talk about content usable
Remote meetings with Judy and Scott to present work
Our main interest it scheduling so there is no clash
Also we have mechanisms for live captioning etc that we need to plan
A question is do we want to join with personalisation and pronunciation or is that too much?
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest a re-framing of the time context, and to update on AOM
JB: Regarding the future of APIs discussion..
there are other discussions relating..
There is an issue around how to frame the A11y API -we need to be careful about what we imply about the timing of that.
They may need to transition in the next 5 years but we dont want to scare people out of using them
Should be framed in the future tense.
JB: There are discussion at W3C Management and team about the AOM
These conversations should also happen in APA before TPAC
JB: Sounds good
JS: Fine to all the above - the issue of coming to end of life - is about exploring the future before we get there to avoid trouble.
That meeting needs to have the right people there.
We aim to invite some key people. Then if so we can chat, otherwise won't schedule.
JS: I did raise this on a WAI co-ordination call.
James Craig was positive about doing this
At TPAC, as a good forum
Cc'ing Joanie Diggs also - and Alice Boxhall , Aaron etc
We can also learn from their input.
JW: The closest connection is with the XR A11y work
But there are others.
If you are interested in how these all connect then that is a good conversation to be a part of.
JW: Regarding diagrams and charts - that is one area that ARIA is interested in, as well as limitations in current approaches
JS: If we can frame these an engineering problems, I'd be happy to list them
JS: Near term challenges are important conversations
JB: I'm looking at this from the perspective of how others who are new to the group - so want to give some background
<Judy describes Technical Plenary and Advisory Committee meeting as (currently) a two-week virtual opportunity for the W3C accessibility area to sync up with other W3C working groups, with a lot of pre-arranged joint meetings>
<on TPAC and how it works>
JW: Any questions?
JS: Can I return to the time issue a la breakouts?
Single session or presentation of individual sessions on each user requirements document.
JW: First reaction, is if covering all of them - that session could be tricky.
Brevity vs sufficiency
In one hour
Recent publications also will entail more exposition as well as questions.
Seems crowded to me
JS: Will we split it?
JW: Yes, are they in hour long blocks
JW: some prep and advance notice would be needed
JW: Other points of view
<jasonjgw> Josh: suggests organizing the sessions to group related documents together.
JS: Wants to know what to do.
JS: If slots are at a premium, you could tend towards one over two.
If you could get two sessions set up - that may be better approach - time needed for questions etc
JS: I'm looking at Jason and Josh as presenters.
Thinking of the docs we have - and some new items for TPAC - such as the Natural Language A11y User Requirements.
What do you want to do?
Can they be combined? What should the wider W3C need to know.
Add up the time - 25 mins max each?
JW: 5 min summaries of each - Media Syn, Natural Language, XR, WebRTC etc
Remote meetings - looking at 2-25 minutes.
JOC: Are we looking at divided sessions?
JS: We can look at this and I can be a good referee.
JS: We can set up a page etc
JW: Should we revisit this next week?
JS: Coming to a decision soon would be good
JW: Next weeks agenda
JS: There is a link also to the Silver / Accessibility Guidelines Working Group also
Some of our user requirements doc are relevant here also
JS: Looks to Judy for tech solution, CSS? To prevent flashing.
JB: Gives overview on MIT research
Flash mitigation in streaming video using micro second sandboxing techniques that scans luminosity variance.
Can reduce seizure triggers - we need to work out how to deploy that
JB: Lets follow up on that
JS: Want to discuss how to deploy solutions
In browsers or media platforms.
JS: Questions license
JB: Answers question
JS: Will add an agendum to following week
<chat on schedule>
JW: Other questions?
Synchronization accessibility User Requirements.
JW: This is the first of our new docs that we want to bring to first public working draft (FPWD)
https://
JW: It is pretty stable.
What more do we want to do before we publish?
JS: I want to take an editors pass.
JS: If we want to publish early Sept, the first week may be bad - but we may have participation problems, hols and labour day etc.
RK: Please clarify - for the information access, the synchronization was a little bit unclear
THere is a subtle difference between the two.
The use cases vs information
JS: Something in the doc could be better presented?
RK: Is it for both info like video or conferences?
JS: One reason to take an editor pass, is to be sure we have made things clear.
What real world expectations should be etc.
Maybe our RTC doc needs to contain more of this?
JS: It starts with people needing speech and audio latency falling within certain tolerances
Regular people lip read without knowing it.
We need to be clear about distinctions - so movies and live things are covered properly.
JW: The doc does discuss tolerances in different media
Mostly similar, but what can be realistically be done in various contexts is different.
What is reasonable and appropriate may differ
JW: Sounds tight, so what is your availability for editors pass?
JB: Michael back next week.
JS: We can give ourselves a week to review?
We can say we will publish and that triggers an APA CFC
maybe into the second full week of September.
We could publish around the 14th and 16th of Sept
we could keep the comment period open through TPAC
how does that sound?
JW: We been discussing live and pre-recorded media - and if there are issues that can be fixed or resolved in a second working draft.
JS: An editors note may be sufficient.
We are presenting available research etc - vs other guidance that is experiential
JS: Asking for comments is not a bad thing to ask.
<Raja> I agree
JW: Summary and guidance - also good. Editors note I can add.
JS: Any reply from the Madeline?
JW: Yes
They are interested.
And window to review.
<jasonjgw> Josh: offers to help with the editorial review as well as the publication preparation.
JS: We will be looking for others to review
Updates, issues or questions concerning other publication efforts of the Task Force (Natural Language, Remote Meetings, XR).
JS: Regarding our other publication efforts
There has work been going on with Natural Language Accessibility from Josh
A11y of remote meetings - I've raised an issue on Github, clarity needed
Thats it mostly
<jasonjgw> Josh: XR Accessibility User Requirements is in a publication-ready state; Michael will address the publication process upon his return.