Meeting minutes
Joint working group meetings and break-out sessions planned for TPAC 2021.
Joint working group meetings and break-out sessions planned for TPAC 2021.
JW: Notes changes in meetings
COGA TF requested joint meeting
JW: Janina updates?
https://
JS: We have two RQTF meetings on the 20th
Near the top
In the first week of TPAC on the 20th at this time, we will meet with COGA
They will drive the agenda
Then straight into Timed text
And the SAUR - Media Synchronization
These are the key items that are scheduled
These times are confirmed.
JS: Thanks Janina and to other for organisation
JS: Comments?
Synchronization Accessibility User Requirements: state of the Call for Consensus.
JS: Expect things that develop to go there
JW: This is the SAUR document
<janina> https://
There is an active CFC, that has been issued - it ends midnight next week (Weds)
JS: Any formal member of APA is invited to review and comment
[Boston time]
JW: It is progressing
JS: The reason for the longer timeframe is that there are a number of holidays at the moment
We want to cover 5 business days - we are doing that, exactly.
JW: Thanks all round
We have also responded to the FCC related comments.
JOC: When will I get the FPWD branch going?
JS: Yes, you should - not expecting objections and there have been been positive responses.
JOC: OK, I can do that.
JOC: Asks about SAUR blog post with Steve?
JW: We can do that.
SN: I can work with Jason.
JS: Can be done in email?
JOC: I will forward sample blog posts and related things.
JW: We will discuss again next week.
Accessibility of Remote Meetings.
JW: Last time we discussed it, we were thinking of next stages.
There have been some changes - I proposed some revisions
These have been discussed and are included
So what process do we want for public review and status?
Open for comments
SH: Thanks for all the input, v helpful
SH: It’s in a good place - q to Judy around plan?
Any update?
JB: Josh and I spoke about this.
JB: Shawn had concerns around how the remote meetings doc fits in.
JOC: Can you do that?
JB: Yup.
JB: We need to work out where this fits.
I’ll follow up with Shawn
JS: Sounds good. EO is the main intersection point here.
JW: Let’s make progress here, and see that that looks like.
JS: I want to promote the notion of W3C note - either APA only or EO only or joint
For two reasons - getting the widest public review on the way to note status, and also around the process regarding statements
JB: Thanks for the clarification
JB: EO does not do notes
I don’t think they would co-sponsor etc - they are busy
regarding the note track, Michael has concerns around how this intersects with other notes from APA
JB: Do others support what Janina is saying?
FYI Statements are a new W3C process option
JW: I’ve read the draft - gives overview
SH: I do support Janina
It’s also useful as a supporting document for the RAUR
SH: Are there reasons why it shouldn’t be a note?
JB: <gives overview of W3C publications>
<janina> https://
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to describe the W3C Process Statement option
JB: Janina is right that we could send this on a path
JB: There are pros and cons
JB: We could do that outside the meeting and include a W3C statement in the options
SH: That would be helpful
JW: Let’s see what pros and cons look like after EO have engaged with the question.
JB: Shawn has many roles
JW: When will we bring it back?
JB: Next week please
WAI-CooP symposium.
<Judy> [JB clarifies that the discussion will be with Shawn, not directly with EOWG]
JW: This is the Community of Practice project
An important element is that this will explore issues with Emerging technology and practices.
The organisers are arranging a symposium
APA and Research Questions are participating.
JW: Josh?
<jasonjgw> Josh: notes that APA will essentially be co-organizing the symposium. Several APA/RQTF participants have contributed to preliminary discussions of the Symposium.
JS: I also contributed
JB: There is a timing issue they want to announce today.
JB: We hope to get this through the announcement cycle today.
So there were questions around APA and RQTF role.
JS: My additions are given in the last hour.
JW: They are canvassing for research topics that would be of interest.
All here are welcome to participate.
JOC: Acks seeing Janina proposal
JB: Carlos’s proposal seemed to be lighter.
JW: Some tweaking is needed to what Carlos is saying.
He lists Pronunciation but it isn’t clear that it refers to TTS.
JB: Research Questions may not all have seen this either, can you resend?
JS: Happy to do that.
JW: There will be opportunities for engagement with the symposium
Anything else to note?
JOC: We just need to work out what the term is that we are.
JOC: <gives overview of latest draft symposium draft from Carlos>
JW: The call is broad - and there are a list of topics that should engage people
JW: Comments?
<Raja> If there is no active link to the symposium , is there a link to previous symposium?
JB: Any objections to ‘RQTF invites..’ wording?
<Raja> No objection
JS: Can we say APA - Research Questions invites? Keep link?
<Raja> Yes, I like that
JW: There is a broad audience here
Natural Language Interface Accessibility User Requirements.
JW: This is an early editors draft and once the SAUR is ready we would start working in this
And getting it over the line.
Josh is busy now on getting SAUR ready for publishing
Please do re-familiarise yourself with the NAUR
What is in main will reflect the work done so far - there is some work in a branch, that I will review with Josh
But proposed material is in main
JW: Let’s do that over the next couple of weeks, and as soon as SAUR is ready we can look at the Natural Language Interface document (NAUR)
<crickets>
JW: There is a good window to review and get ready for public review
JW: Let’s bring this back next week.
WAI-CooP symposium.
Miscellaneous topics.
JW: There is the topic of Flash mitigation
Anything else from APA?
JS: Nothing we’ve not touched on.
We are hoping to progress
JS: We have good stuff in the pipeline, the SAUR, Flash mitigation - exciting when we can do stuff that fixes problems