Meeting minutes
Guest: Ralph Swick, to listen to feedback on accessibility issues in W3C calendaring
<MichaelC> https://
Judy: Some accessibility issues have arisen with the calendar. Ralph is here to help us explore some of the issues.
MichaelC: The tool was reviewed for accessibility; some issues arise in practice however. One issue is it's hard to tell if you're logged in, and not being logged in may be the cauase of some issues that have been attributed as accessibility issues. IIRC janina has technical issues with some widgets.
Ralph: Keen to hear this conversation to help the systems team with prioritization.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about Frankfurt Book Fair
jamesn: The login button is harder to find when zoomed or on small-screen device (hidden behind a menu).
Judy: How much of the problem is visual, or screen reader related?
MichaelC: AFAIK it's visual. The button should be findable by everyone, with some work, but it could be more obvious to screen reader users.
janina: I haven't used this for a while, but remember a couple of significant issues and some others on which I may be less clear. One issue was being compelled to have expiration dates for meetings that are fairly close (a few months rather than a year or so).
<jamesn> +1 on that timezone picker
janina: TZ doesn't default to Boston. Can't autocomplete. Boston isn't even listed under American cities.
janina: Several things advertised themselves to the screen reader as comboboxes, but they all behaved differently.
janina: I have an email on this that I may be able to dig up.
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to state that the login button issue is particularly apparent on small screens (or when zoomed) when it is hidden behind a menu
Judy: [invites more issues from the group]
Ralph: This is useful feedback; if we need to ask for more feedback to reproduce, we'll come back.
jamesn: Why not file these on GitHub?
<Ralph> GitHub repo of W3C Calendar issues
Judy: Everyone's welcome to file on GitHub; we are listening here and now in case too.
<Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to suggest filing them as github issues
Judy: Any low-vision issues?
Matthew_Atkinson: +1 to the login button or state being somewhat hard to find; I have not extensively used the calendar tool yet.
Judy: Thanks Ralph!
Ralph: Thanks for the feedback.
<Ralph> [Ralph departs]
Chairs survey on TPAC
Judy: We intende to run a hybrid event (not an in-person-only meeting). Things may change of course, but that is the current aspiration. We are particularly looking for feedback on the variables that would affect groups' decisions on participating IRL.
Judy: Looking for feedback from chairs on what your groups are thinking.
Judy: We need as clear feedback as we can.
janina: Trying to figure out how to ask this question in the various APA TFs. APA is always keen to participate as much as possible in TPAC. Getting some questions on the side from participants.
Judy: You can use your discression to figure out what sorts of questions are best. We were trying to lay out a number of criteria that may matter to your groups.
Judy: You could ask on some of the variables in the survey, which will help us know what to watch for any changes.
<shawn> EOWG's survey https://
brent: Generally we have asked people's interest in meeting in person, in different places (i.e. CSUN, AccessU, TPAC, Accessing Higher Ground, ...)
brent: Currently for TPAC it's about 50/50. We will keep talking about it. We always ACK that things could change when discussing it.
brent: We were hoping to have a meeting at AccessU in May, for example.
Judy: Some of us have found that the first time it's brought up, it can be stressful, and seems a long time away, but there has generally been interest in gathering if possible.
brent: Note the survey closes on 28 March. We plan to keep asking our group and then submit the survey later.
Judy: APA and EO have similar cross-W3C things you may want to look at, at TPAC.
CEPC reminder
Judy: The date is close to when we have to make a decision.
Judy: We are still getting some edit requests, but it is being relied on increasingly. We ask that you remind your groups about it quarterly. Is there any feedback coming up when you raise it that may not have made it into GitHub issues?
<brent> CEPC=?
<Judy> https://
janina: We need to raise this in APA; we have a lot of new participants. (+1 from Matthew_Atkinson)
COGA next steps
Judy: COGA has had a work statement for a while. Have completed major work, Content Usable, recently. They want to focus on the next round of deliverables.
<MichaelC> https://
<shawn> COGA Draft Work Statement (google doc) https://
Judy: WAI has been keen for COGA's work to be better understood across all of WAI and W3C for many years.
Judy: We want to help the group plan for ways that will be a realistic amount of work that integrates with and moves all of WAI forward.
Judy: [invites comments from the group]
janina: We've arranged for APA and AGWG co-chairs join the COGA planning call next Tuesday. I wanted a little more definition wrt "subset of mental health".
janina: I found 8 points on the statement when going through it. Had an amicable discussion with Rain and Lisa about it.
janina: Expecting to make progress on the COGA plan call next Tuesday at 9am Boston.
Rachael: Emailing the list of points from Janina to APA and AG chairs, plus Lisa and Rain, would be fine.
janina: [confirms this was done]
Judy: I have some comments to forward as well. The intent is to be supportive of better integration of COGA work in future, whilst being cautious about scope. Lots of great stuff here.
janina: +1 to scope concerns. We had a very amicable meeting of the minds and I am no longer concerned that we won't resolve the issues.
Judy: does anyone else have concerns about this and/or how to get more involved with COGA?
Rachael: There are concerns about scope and integration points with other groups; there are enough comments coming back that we may make another iteration.
Judy: Are there any points regarding coordination that you'd like to surface for feedback for working on the deliverables?
Rachael: [can't think of any off hand]
Sharron: Is there something specific we need to be aware of? I think we've been pretty proactive about including COGA, e.g. reviewing personas. Our new co-chair acts as liaison with COGA. Some bumps, as in any collaborative relationship, but we're content with how things are moving forward. Much closer contact these days; easier to get meetings and coordinate.
Judy: The issues that COGA TF is covering really need to be woven into all parts of WAI; need to get there. The sort of collaborations beginning to evolve (COGA + EO; COGA + Silver) are great. EO has such a high throughput of educational materials for accessibility industry as a whole. Having the new liaison is going to be helpful.
Sharron: Our relationship is improving, as we work better together, there is more of a desire from COGA to integrate our content and work.
stevelee: +1 this is great to hear.
Judy: Are there COGA issues showing up as prompts for the reviews that APA is doing and/or in things like the FAST?
janina: Wouldn't say we're spotting a lot of COGA issues in horizontal review. We have had slight success in soliciting COGA aspects to reviews; one issue is that COGA feedback is often qualitative. The Personalization TF is a brilliant example of application of COGA principles.
janina: COGA want to standardise Content Usable; not sure this is the right or a possible approach for this document.
Judy: Example: say W3C is updating WoT charter. We think of uses in different contexts: home; work; ... E.g. Are we making sure that we have the right hooks into COGA to make sure the needs of people facing cognitive accessibiilty barriers in settings like this are being met?
janina: We had a conversation on APA today that may help us meet COGA's needs on this (though they weren't directly involved; we have been discussing this for some time).
Updates: publication plans, announcements https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
Rachael: Comments on COGA work statement needed by next Tuesday, when we meet.
janina: Think SAUR may slip to March. Personalization content module [possible renaming in progress] very soon.
Judy: How at risk is SAUR of going into March?
janina: Highly
janina: We're going to ask Timed Text for joint publication if they're interested; want to wait until we have camera-ready copy.
Judy: Sounds good. However there can be confusion down the road as to who has responsiblity/authority for changing things. Need to be careful to maintain APA has the lead on that.
janina: ACK. Wouldn't mind if Timed Text kept some of this up to date as it's evidence driven.
Matthew_Atkinson: Re Personalization, we want to create a schema for naming that allows us to have multiple modules in future and doesn't limit our scope for implementation styles etc. in future.
janina: We are keen to put across that it's about accessiblity and not mistaken for things like marketing.
Judy: +1 to janina's concerns. Are there ways EO can help with the messaging here?
janina: We're thinking of changing it to "Personalized Adaptation: [topic] Module"
Judy: This seems less clear?
janina: "Adaptation" is intended to imply "accessibility"
Judy: Seems less plain language.
shawn: Would you like to organize some cross-group time to work on this?
janina: You're welcome to join our TF calls (Monday, 10am Boston).
janina: The rename effort came about based in significant part on helping COGA (and everyone) to understand/differentiate the purposes of the different modules.
Checking: New work under development? And status on cross-WAI review requests.
shawn: Will follow up with you janina
janina: Looking at CAPTCHA. We would like coordination help. We concluded we want to radically shift the guidance away from website content authoring (so PWD will have to deal with all kinds of CAPTCHAs) and put it on the UA (so we need to coordinate with security and privacy).
Judy: Let's follow up offline, and bring it back as an issue here in future.