Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
<Fazio> nothing from me/coga
Task Force Updates
janina: RQTF: Cautiously proceeding in the direction of exploring automation in CAPTCHA document.
janina: Personalization: Still have one blocking issue. Working on technical issues with demonstration extension with Matthew_Atkinson and Lisa. We have permission (pending Lisa's approval) to share the extension with W3C chairs to clear issue 144. Will revisit licencing later.
… The current issue is the extension doesn't support data-* (rather aui-*) so Matthew_Atkinson is working on modifying the example content.
janina: Pronunciation: Continuing conversation with ARIA, looking at what support we can get into ATs and UA. Good consideration, interest and feedback from ARIA. Gap analysis is being updated.
janina: COGA: Fazio?
Fazio: Looking into the scrollbar issue; will update soon.
janina: Suggest you CC the APA list.
FAST Update
Joshue108: JF joined yesterday's call, glad to have you involved, and we are onboarding him. Looking at intersections of user needs.
Joshue108: JF will be looking into potential outcomes from a personalization perspective.
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
janina: We've been having discussions (list CC'd) with François about Second Screen. Looking at in-band vs out-of-band. JF clarified, and is happy with François' response?
JF: Confirmed; happy.
janina: We can clear this with management. They're aware of what we care about. I thought François was helpful and specific in his responses. This bodes well for the API, which we look forward to reviewing. Our issues haven't been forgotten/overlooked/misunderstood.
MichaelC: It is now signed off.
MichaelC: No other new charters.
A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
<MichaelC> https://
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: ^ is "Errors when complexity exceeds the capability of the system to render - accessibility implications"
MichaelC: janina: We're concerned with this section: https://
janina: Sounds like everyone is happy with this.
MichaelC: WebXR Layers API [future agendum]
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
MichaelC: There are two CSS specs—do we want to regroup [planning call agendum]?
janina: [agrees]
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
janina: Fredrik completed an action last week...
Fredrik: Posted my review of Input Events on list.
https://
Fredrik: Happy with it, though it is currently an early draft.
<janina> close action-2311
<trackbot> Closed action-2311.
Web XR -- Josh https://github.com/immersive-web/layers/issues/278
Joshue108: This relates to the WebXR Layers API and the response we made to the WebXR group.
<Joshue108> Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) question on WebXR Layers API spec #278
<MichaelC> https://
<MichaelC> https://
Joshue108: Our concerns were around legibility, particularly of text, when the buffers are low resolution. We asked if this would relate to accessible alternative formats such as captions etc.
<Joshue108> https://
Joshue108: We quickly got a response that allowed the WebXR content to be rendered at low resolution, but have the alternative text content layer still rendered at high resolution, so that it is useful for providing accessible alternatives, but still have performance gains from rendering the XR content at low resolution.
janina: Concern about use of the word "regular" in the proposed changes. In prevoius group work, such as the MAUR, we have used terms such as "primary content" and "alternative content" or "alternative". This is much better than "regular" or "irregular".
Joshue108: The gist of the solution was that this is down to performance; rendering XR content at lower resolution for perofrmance, but the layer containing the text can still be rendered at higher resolution.
janina: Can we confirm? Of course not intended, but terming some content "regular" has a connotation for other content.
MichaelC: Sounds like it is just referring to the predominant content. If they used "ordinary" content instead of "regular" would we have had an issue with it?
Joshue108: Agree with MichaelC, but think both of these terms need to be clarified. Don't think there's anything to worry about in terms of legibility of alternative content.
Fredrik: I get the same feeling as janina with "regular" and "irregular", but "primary" and "alternative" is a very nice way of moving around it.
janina: I'm happy to call this a nit.
MichaelC: Suggest we leave a comment on the thread to seek clarification on these terms, but not re-open the issue.
Joshue108: [agrees; will do]
janina: We can make it clear we don't think anything negative was intended.
Fredrik: We could ask if there is a general language section within W3C to take care of discussions like this?
Fredrik: These sorts of discussoins come up; we could address in one place.
janina: Has this reached the process or style document?
MichaelC: Don't think we have anything at that level of detail.
janina: These kinds of issues do come up (c.f. git branch names).
<MichaelC> https://
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: This may be related to the positive work environemnt TF and CG [link above]
Fazio: I did bring up the CAPTCHA topic in COGA and we are going to look into it.
janina: We have updates (around the notion of "automated") in the pipeline.
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: We were going to run a CfC in 2019; not sure if we did. The spec doesn't seem to be actively maintained. Suggest we close this and await updates.
janina: We will be contacting Nigel from RQTF about the SAUR, which will relate to WebVTT, not directly, but maybe the next iteration of WebVTT could point to the SAUR.
janina: We are working with Timed Text to asses whether SAUR should be progressed to being a W3C Statement.
<Fazio> I divery true
janina: The reasons for, besides it being research-based and extensive, is that we uncovered that if you allow audio and video to go out-of-synch, everyone has a disability.
<Fazio> very true
janina: I.e. good synchronisation is essential to some, but useful for all.
… This work was well-recieved (by Nigel; Timed Text et al) at TPAC 2020.
<MichaelC> https://
janina: We want to advance CAPTCHA to a Statement, but suggest we start with SAUR as it should be more straightforward.
Fredrik: IIRC the web auth API was too low-level. Have updated wording suggestion for the Accessibility Considerations section [in the message linked above]
<MichaelC> "User verification-capable authenticators, whether roaming or platform, should offer users more than one user verification method (e.g., both fingerprint sensing and PIN entry). This allows for fallback to other user verification means if the selected one is not working for some reason. Note that in the case of roaming authenticators, the authenticator and platform might work together to provide a user verification method such as PIN entry [FIDO-CTAP].
<MichaelC> Relying Parties, at registration time, SHOULD provide affordances for users to complete future authorization gestures correctly. This could involve naming the authenticator, choosing a picture to associate with the device, or entering freeform text instructions (e.g., as a reminder-to-self).
<MichaelC> Ceremonies relying on timing, e.g., a registration ceremony (see timeout) or an authentication ceremony (see timeout), ought to follow the Enough Time guideline of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. If a client platform determines that a Relying Party-supplied timeout does not appropriately adhere to the latter guidelines, then the client platform MAY adjust the timeout accordingly.
<MichaelC> It is also advised that any user-facing aspect of an authorization process follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to support as wide a range of users and use cases as possible."
Fredrik: I still thing these wording changes should be submitted as a comment. Open to comments though!
janina: +1 to referencing WCAG
janina: Please file the issue Fredrik [MichaelC notes there is no need for a CfC as this is non-normative]
Matthew_Atkinson: Is there anything we should make this group aware of regarding proposed WCAG 2.2 SCs?
Matthew_Atkinson: +1 to referencing WCAG
<MichaelC> https://
<Fazio> LOL Janina you're funny
janina: We discussed that there is some muddling between authentication (I'm not a robot) and authorization (accessing things).
janina: CAPTCHA isn't about login
<Fazio> that was a black hole too
<Fazio> cognitive function test ran into problems
MichaelC: This doesn't seem to overlap with the proposed WCAG 2.2 SC.
janina: We did share feedback on the muddling with WCAG.
<MichaelC> https://
janina: We wouldn't respect ASL to be represented in a font.
MichaelC: Finger spellings could be, though. [janina agrees; wonder if different languages are relevant there; will follow up RQTF]
MichaelC: Do language tags apply to media other than text? E.g. a recording? That may well have sign language in it.
MichaelC: janina: There are recognized sign languages, and gestures.
MichaelC: We won't be touching gestures, but may want to indicate that "if you use sign language, this will be accessible to you"
janina: And locale of sign language.
MichaelC: Sounds like that use case is not met; refer to RQTF?
janina: yes
<MichaelC> https://
janina: Joshue108 can we review with you next week? [will follow up with Joshue108 offline]