Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements;
introductions were done to welcome Andrew Nevins to the group
<janina> https://
janina: CFC open for synchronization accessibility user requirements
please take a look at the above. opportunity to +1 the CFC
TPAC Planning https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings
becky: little bit of hiccup. seems like we were scheduling during the wrong week. SOUR has been recast and we have asked for the same time.
becky: meeting with CSS. opened up to wider group. can be a breakout. requested at the same time
becky: other meeting requested between COGA and Personalization. work on finding time within/without TPAC
<becky> https://
<becky> https://
janina: two sessions scheduled with EPUB for the second week
Task Force Updates;
becky: no COGA rep here today
janina: research questions looking at additional breakouts. proposals coming from them. Josh will help with requests. Research questions about how to host an accessible virtual meeting. Scott (co-facilitator) will be a lead presenter. joint sessions coming out of research questions. COGA has a few. slowly progressing at figuring out what they are. request a CFC for natural language accessibility user requirements hopefully before TPAC.
janina: what we might to do mitigate flashes. buffering by a small time interval might be enough to mitigate flashing on web pages
<janina> https://
becky: Personalization: had meeting with i18n. one of the issues holding up first content module going to CR. had a discussion. they had some concerns about left-right languages. wanted to see some more complex examples. update Cup of Tea example to include a full paragraph of information.
becky: work on assigning tasks at next Personalization meeting
PaulG: Pronunciation: informal meeting this week. low turnout. made a decision to move forward with an edit to first public working draft . feedback on examples, grammar: nuanced changes
janina: two groups that develop normative specifications: Personalization and Pronunciation. specs need to be worked on as drafts until ready to publish a wide public review. once published, get comments from wider public and then respond to them. can pursue or deny requests. sometimes can be very useful
janina: update a working draft every 3 months or so. preferred rate of updating the working draft. once the spec is ready to be finished (recommendation status), there's a series of steps: various recommendations
janina: something we do at APA is review other groups' specifications. we are one of the four groups in W3C that does horizontal review. when they publish or get close to CR status, we look at the specs and sign off or address concerns
EPUB Specs Accessibility Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:DPub
becky: EPUB has many specs they are updating. they have asked for accessibility review
<becky> full list of EPUB publications: https://
<becky> EPUB 3.3 https://
janina: EPUB gave us a list of three to review. more likely than not, things are in good shape. owe them a good full read. they are moving towards a 3.3 release in EPUB. Three specs for review. if they come up we will discuss them here. meetings scheduled during TPAC
<becky> EPUB 3.3 Reading systems: https://
<becky> EPUB Accessibility 1.1 https://
janina: need to find at least two APA members to review and discuss here in the group. at least two members per spec would be thorough. Research Questions may also be interested in reviewing these
becky: I would like to look at EPUB 1.1 document
janina: will review before making a commitment to one of the docs
<janina> https://
janina: original spelling and orthography in a modern gloss. kind of publication that important in history. various places where this kind of publication is highly useful. we support this but could be better for accessibility purposes
anevins: what does a review consist of?
janina: we look at formats. some groups forget alt text, diagrams without detailed summary elements. we look at formatting, color contrast, etc. we also look at substance of what they say and look for potential accessibility issue for whatever reason. we are trying to give them a checklist to help guide accessibility support in spec drafting
anevins: this may be something I can contribute to as a newcomer to the group
janina: if you know WCAG you will likely have what's required for EPUB
janina: we look at CSS specs, we look at anything by W3C
janina: good to have people review things that aren't in the weeds, so to speak.
<becky> ack, JF
JF: formal process piece. just to tack on, EPUB docs today are HTML or XHTML. the difference for EPUB is some of the packaging that are above and beyond accessibility concerns. EPUB format is essentially ZIP. multiple HTML docs inside the container. change the EPUB container file to ZIP and you can see all relevant dependent files
JF: metadata requirements that hold information. in terms of accessibility review, if you know WCAG you're good to go
<becky> ack, mike
<becky> ack, mike_beganyi
mike_beganyi: would like to volunteer for an EPUB review. will select a doc after looking at the three
<becky> ack, Fredrik
janina: joint meeting with EPUB for 26th, 28th. if we're ready 2 weeks in advance that's all the better
janina: will touch back on these next week and assign actions
Task Force Updates;
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
JF: sidebar on that page with a "My Tracker" feature to see your actions
<janina> action-2287?
<trackbot> action-2287: John Foliot to Look at https://www.w3.org/wai/apa/wiki/media_capabilities and provide comments to our group next week -- due 2021-04-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<JF> https://
JF: will close this action. probably need to follow-up to see what's happening
janina: will want to move specification to CR status but before they can we have to check a checkbox.
becky: AOB?