Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
janina: We will throught TPAC be lookign at EPUB documents. They want a throrough review. There are some issues that some of us have noticed. Some documetns need reviewers too. This will be on the agenda as well.
<janina> https://
janina: SAUR FPWD is published!
janina: Comments open until 5.11.
JanThere will be a presentation of SAUR at TPAC and at a W3C workshop.
janina: Two more CFCs!
<janina> https://
<janina> https://
janina: Accessibility of Remote Meetings has been in teh works almost since we all went virtual. It will bepublished as a FPWD after teh CFC.
janina: I think this clears the docket of the RQTF. They have some additional things going on. Those CFCs are open through next week.
<janina> https://
janina: The Shape the Future Symposium, that APA is one of the sponsors of. It's open for papers if you would like to present. Ther eis a review committee. The submissions don't nee dto be long. Proposals up to 1500 words. You may be sleected to present at the symposium which will take place in November. The rest of the details are in the announcement.
TPAC Planning https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021
janina: W continue to work on it. We're not fully scheduled yet. One proposed scheduled session was dropped having to do with a WAI-wide glossary. Some other sessions need scheduling and there are proposed sessions ans some scheduled ones. No additions to the current Wiki page expected except for actual scheduling. Deletioas may occur, but the current list...
Task Force Updates
janina: Pretty much done with RQTF. SAUR is out. It will be presented as a breakout session at TPAC. There is a followup planned. Other aspects, too.
janina: In addition there are the two mentioned CFCs.
janina: Editorial enhancements are accepted duringm CFCs, but then please use Github comments.
<JF> Content: https://
<JF> Help and Support: https://
<Fazio> personalization is important for coga
janina: Personalization: literally trying to clean up one remainign horizontal review action. Made some progress on it. Laying out, with Jon's help, a systematized presentation of modules we aren't ready to publish which we have to discussi with COGA. The documents we are about to publish, any of those started with COGA. Most importantly, we should clear the
janina: .... for internationalizations.
JF: We're going to have to go back to look at help and support and tools to see if what we're saying is what we want to be saying.
janina: Thanks!
Fazio: Many thanks from COGA.
JF: Please look at the mentioned modules. Any help or coments are appreciated.
Fazio: We're working onha document for guidance on how to work with COGA. We continue to work on this document.
Fazio: We have an images subgroup dedicated to finding appropriate images to understand the Content Usable document.
Fazio: We have a lot going on, but not much more to update people on.
PaulG: Pronunconation: We're just sorting out or arrangements here. There is a document coming up ready fofr CFC in a week or so.
FAST Update
Joshue108: On Friday we had Jake and Todd Libby were there. We were discussing Jake's proposal on how we could work with that within the Functional Needs subgroup.
Joshue108: We have concerns about diversity. I have reached ou tot some peole who migh tfit the bill.
Joshue108: To relate this to TPAC: we're wrapping up a presentation of session we hope will be really useful to explainingthe curren work we've been doing.
<janina> https://
janina: I was very intrigued by the work Shawn Lauriat has done on Functional Needs on trying to map where we have coverage which will map nicely with WACG3 and where tehre a regaps.
janina: I found that interesting since we review a lot of specs. It may be interesting to map some of the specs we've reviewed, of both kinds, both where there is an dwhere there isn't, in the hope that we might find some technical solutions or where we may have accessibility considerations.
janina: There ar e very interesting intersections for APA work.
janina: Josh, Michael, any reactions?
Joshue108: Jake did relate that Sean had made progress iterating like that. There is a list of potential guidelines which Sean has drawn up and shared. It's kind of hitting a few bases and lighting people up. We need to round that off a little within the Functional Needs subgroup because we need to work on the proposal.
janina: We mayb e able to drive technological solutions where. Judy shared with RQTF the work she has seen in action the work from MIT she ahs seen.
<janina> https://
janina: This can be implemented in browsers or televisions or almost whatever. To what extent can we push this? Are ther eorthe rtechynologies like this where we might propose technological solutions, for instance tuning audio for people's hearing? Thos e questions are being discussed in RQTF for instance. Also WebXR.
<Fazio> like T-Pain and auto-tune???
janina: There's colour adjustments for people with sensitivities to colours and so on.
janina: These conversations are just starting. Even other aspects of what is currently authoring guidelines. An intersection and a place for APA to say: perhaps W3C should recommend and we might need a spec from us or somebody else to pick up something that's being identified through all of this work.
Lionel_Wolberger: I'd like your help, Janina. When we comment on a spec, we point out the places where the community creating that spec may have overlooked something that needs addressing. I don't see in that language where we would say "don't forget that there are technological solutions"' Janina, you said that we can engage technologically. There's a missn
janina: It might be that some group is doing something similar enough to what we want that we can egage them and engage them in the development of that section of that spec.
janina: Or we may propose working on tosmething from the ground up.
janina: We should look for those kinds of opportunities where we can define them.
Lionel_Wolberger: I see hwo it could go into our typical feedback. "Be aware that there is this technology developing". We could also work as matchmakers, and that would not go in our typical workflow.
janina: Our remit is not just to comment on what is or isn't in a spec but also to do "matchmaking". we are perfectly empowered to do that.
JF: We are the tipping point.
janina: "You and them, talk about this and CC us."
janina: We're going to do this kind of matchmaking during TPAC. EPUB has been busy with Schema for 25 years. Silver is dientifying that a schema for video and so forth should have technological definitions.
janina: jFro WCA3 to say soemthing sensible about this it would be great to have Schema. Is your media exposing the appropriate thing on the appropriate address? It's a good idea to ahve a Schema.
janina: WCAG3 is probably going to say more than "You should have captions", probably something like "You should implement this schema; if it's a professionally developed video this schema shoudl be used". Adn so on.
JF: Right away the quesiton comgin to my mind is: where does that metadata live? It can live inside the media wrapper or on the hosign page, it can be referenced via a scipr and so on.
janina: Who wants to be the host for two bilolion video sworht of metadata?
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
MichaelC: The We b Payments charter, we didn't make a decision on what to comment on. They are getting ready to move forward.
janina: Do we want to liaise? The relationsihp hasn't been particularly fruitful so far.
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: We could request a liaison to push th e point or just let it go. We can still bug them if we see something.
MichaelC: Let it go?
janina: I agree.
Crickets.
A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: There's an issue on CSS-Highlight-ATI. Figure out how hightligs h are expoed to the accessibility tree. This wwas a duplicate issue we decided to follow.
janina: Amy should be back next week.
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: OpenUI issue. No activity yet. Is this oen we want to track?
janina: I think yes.
MichaelC: Marking that as something we're tracking.
MichaelC: There is a couple new specs.
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: Inceremental Font Transfer.
janina: We looked at this a couple weeks ago.
MichaelC: Looks like they did a fast review.
MichaelC: They are alterting to us about their fast review.
janina: We don't need to review this.
Epub 3.3 Reviews
janina: John, what did you find in what spec?
JF: On the AGWG call yesterday they were starting to look at scoring in teh context of WCAG3.
JF: The discussion turned to the different types of images ou tthere.
JF: In the context of some EPUB books, the people who have been tagging content mark images as decorative if they don't know what to do about them.
JF: I was concerned about the discussion about scoring in terms of different types of alt-tags and so on.
JF: The ofnromance is related to the quality, not just hte presence of alt text.
janina: Yes, that's a potential issue if the spec is not well applied by industries, someone should be doing something about that. What I heard was that you were reading an EPUB specification with wonky alt texts.
JF: No.
janina: Drop that then.
janina: We do have three EPUB specs we want to give a thorough read on.
janina: I need two people each for EPUB 3.3 and EPUB Reading Szstems.
Fredrik: EPUB 3.3 please.
janina: Done!
Action: fredrikfischer to review EPUB 3.3
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2310 - Review epub 3.3 [on Fredrik Fischer - due 2021-10-06].
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
<MichaelC> Web Platform Design Principles/
MichaelC: Only one new document. I am suspicious of anything that the Technical Architecture Gruoup publishes nowadays.
MichaelC: We might want to review it.
MichaelC: These are notes without a prior draft.
janina: Can we come back to this in November sometime, like around the 17th?
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
Joshue108: I've got three reviews.
Joshue108: There are privacy concerns in one spec I have been looking at. There is a potential for teh scanning spec to provide overlays in an AR type situation. I'd like someone to tag team with jem on this.
Joshue108: It could relate to orientation as well.
Joshue108: The reviews are all on teh APA list as well as eht questions I have outlined. Just join in.
<Lionel_Wolberger> s\teh\the
<Joshue108> https://
<Joshue108> Review and discussion of the WebXR Hit Test Module FPWD
Joshue108: It is on one level kind of low-level since it relates to how the hardware parses aspects of the external environemtn but there is a potential surface here.
janina: It's the classica accessibility connundrum. Privacy yes, but we do like the service of what's around me.
Fazio: I wonder how that applies to people with disabilities. Specifically.
janina: That's exactly the question we need to asnwer. We know that there is a value of service. But if privacy is protectedk, is there an accessibility aspect here?
Joshue108: If you ahve some kind of node in the external environment which trigger disability access.
Joshue108: Say there si something like this here whereby some kind of input perhaps enabled by the Hit Test Module triggers an interface that persons will have overlaid over their environemt. I come to this from a perspective of harm.
janina: We couled easily continue this conversation. and we are past the hour.