– DRAFT –
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

Synchronization Accessibility User Requirements - publication process.

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Second working draft of SAUR has been published

<SteveNoble> janina: Expecting that the messaging on SAUR publication will commence in another day or so

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Review period will go through May 13

Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA.

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Made an attempt at the document reorganization - in a new branch

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Any discussion on the reorganization?

<SteveNoble> janina: We do not need to rush to cement these changes

<SteveNoble> janina: We likely need to change working in the abstract and conclusions and many things in between

<SteveNoble> For the zoom meeting?

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Currently we have separation between legacy and state-of-art

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Also between interactive and passive

<SteveNoble> scott: That reorg plan sounds good

<SteveNoble> scott: how much do we think will be new content?

<SteveNoble> janina: Could be 10% to 20%

<SteveNoble> janina: New technology is pressing toward 99.99+% confidence, so this could indeed kill CAPTCHA

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Will merge the existing changes and then we can discuss from there

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: We can wait in the title till later

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Had an action item to review the specification

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Connecting to verifiable credentials group

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: The CAP protocol is first

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Verifiable credentials is also a good direction

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Privacy pass is a third option to look at

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: "Privacy pass" may be a poor name - the driver behind that spec was for people who need to keep their identity private for safety reasons

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Verifiable credentials seems to be a immature approach

<SteveNoble> janina: The IETF connection was not considered in our original document, so this is a good addition

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: Possible connection to an organized key signing?

<SteveNoble> Lionel_Wolberger: Perhaps a more common place analogy is using an ATM to get a new bank pin?

<SteveNoble> janina: Mentioned Bookshare's approach to use one's NLS credentials to sign up

<Lionel_Wolberger> Non-profit in-person vetting with single-use tokens

<SteveNoble> jasonjgw: We can come back to this next week

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel meant to say, Verifiable credentials is likely to be more immature approach as it is a newer technology, but it is W3C (and works closely with DIDs)

<SteveNoble> scott_h: Great progress!

Accessibility of Remote Meetings.

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel adds for the minutes some Privacy Pass links:

<Lionel_Wolberger> Privacy Pass Architectural Framework, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-privacypass-architecture-03.html

<Lionel_Wolberger> The Privacy Pass HTTP Authentication Scheme, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-privacypass-auth-scheme-02.html

<Lionel_Wolberger> Privacy Pass Issuance Protocol, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-04.html

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel quietly leaves, see you in two weeks

JW: On remote meetings - I think we should, instead of editors note - decide on what we want to say, and leave out

JW: We should try to cover other issues around tooling to another document

This could allow us to avoid extra rounds of public review

JS: We have a week or two - we dont have our messaging lined up.

SH: We have had some discussion but to comment, I'd need to think on diffs between ATAG and other tools. Where is that line drawn?

Documents vs online publishing?

JW: Its broad - but doesn't deal with the colloborative aspects

Deals with conforming content and the UI a11y - but not collaborative challenges

Working on a shared resource.

SH: Makes sense

Depends on specifics but I think, any platform used for collaboration should adhere to a11y user requirements

We can draw on ATAG

SH: We have discussed Google docs etc

JS: There are things at play - it is not a REC at W3C - didn't get support

https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

<Discussion on if ATAG is or is not normative>

<Janina gives some background>

SH: Collaborative tools are in this grey zone

JS: I like what Jason wrote. but the question is to what degree should this document cover requirements for cloud based authoring environments?

SH: +1 to Janina

SH: We do need to reference to it etc but maybe no so deep. I support focussing on online collaborative tools.

JW: I'm in line with that.

We may need to broaden this to cover other tools etc?

SH: Good place for it.

JW: There are issues with speed etc - and this relates to issues around organisation

Should we also ref the ATAG? And defer it to new possible work?

Then the editors note may not be needed.

RK: Just to add a big problem is making it easy to add a11y automatically - in the software tool chain.

SH: +1 to that

RK: Like PDFs can be terrible but a PDF is better. Its hard to convince people to convert

Something to think about.

SH: ATAG 2 part B is about how tools should be used to create accessible content.

<jasonjgw> Josh: thinks ATAG needs attention and could benefit from the work done regarding remote meeting accessibility.

JW: On the collaboration side on the user needs - there have been some good things published.

JW: I'll create a branch and we can refine?

SH: Sounds good.