Meeting minutes
Scribe, agenda additions, present+
Judy: Does anyone have conflicts two weeks from now?
tzviya: [does have a conflict in two weeks]
Updates: publication plans, announcements https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
Judy: Please check that what's in the draft announcements is accurate.
janina: We will most likely be renaming Personalization to WAI-Adapt (thanks for EO's help again). CfC is out at the moment, and looks like it'll go through.
janina: We have cleared the i18n issue that we had, and expect to be ready for CR this month.
Judy: Accessibility of Remote Meetings; WCAG Techniques and Understanding and ARIA APG redesign are planned for this month (some on the 19th, GAAD).
janina: A moratorium cropped up with little notice for the 13th to 23rd.
Judy: [will ask for more background on this]
janina: It should not impact APA.
MichaelC: It may impact the ARIA APG. We may need to roll some things out before the moratorium.
Checking: New work under development? Status on cross-WAI review requests?
janina: RQTF is taking up an Accessibility User Requirements (AUR) doc about collaborative editing environments.
janina: There seems to be a fair amount of research literature.
tzviya: very excited to hear this
Matthew_Atkinson: +1
Judy: Suggest you emphasize you're talking about web-based collaborative documents.
janina: +1
Judy: I raised a contrast issue with a collaborative document provider; it was fixed within two months. They realized they weren't applying WCAG to content. Suggest you emphasize the importance of this.
jamesn: We've done some work on this in ARIA (annotations; comments). There is interest around this.
Matthew_Atkinson: Maturity Model has moved to being a sub-group of RQTF (under APA). It's a separate meeting. Janina has been helping getting it set up and with the discussion.
Judy: We've learned a lot about discoverability and transparancy of sub-groups (e.g. from AGWG); want to make sure we benefit from these learnings.
janina: ACK; we have been and are following up in APA
janina: Functional Needs has moved to APA too and we are looking forward to supporting FPWD.
Judy: Is APA trying to broaden the community there?
janina: yes; we intend to continue to collaborate in cross-group communications (especially with WCAG 3; best practices; ...)
tzviya: Is Functional Needs going to be part of WCAG 3?
janina: Returned to APA as a separate thing, as part of FAST (APA).
MichaelC: Overlap of interest was identified; is currently part of FAST. May be split out in future, but still would be expected to be an APA publication.
jamesn: Is there anything in a document that helps me tell if it's on the Note track or the REC track?
Judy: There is some ambiguity; would be good to have something clearer.
MichaelC: There is standard wording that goes in the status, that is required for publication to be successful. I think there may be work going on to make this clearer.
Judy: Will talk with PLH to see what we can do.
janina: Could be something in ReSpec.js?
MichaelC: There is a configuration option for _not_ being on the REC track.
<tzviya> https://
MichaelC: In some status text it will say that the W3C doesn't plan to advance X to a recommendation. (Though this is hard to find.)
<tzviya> This was supposed to be addressed by ClearSpec
Judy: After WCAG 2, industry/government parties requested guidance on how to map W3C (non-normatively) to other non-web ICT environments. This has come up again recently; AGWG will be reviewing the work statement on this soon.
Judy: Scope in terms of technologies will likely come up. E.g. Would web technologies on hardware be in scope?
Judy: There will be some notice to WAICC on this; perhaps RQTF would be interested.
Judy: There's a GitHub version of the FAST checklist; have you seen it?
MichaelC: Yes, though out of scope until after the checklist restructure.
Judy: AGWG is exploring something new with charters...
Rachael: Lots of momentum behind a couple of things in AGWG: WCAG 3 [looking at standards in a different way to cover more disabilities and technologies]; also interest in a version of WCAG 2 that addresses outstanding issues; de-duplicates some of the language that overlaps.
Rachael: We have had a rule that normative text can't be changed; hence some additional SCs to add things (e.g. Reflow). So there is interest in cleaning this up.
Rachael: This is more work than one group could do. Looking at how to support an existing spec that's tied into law, and the new, transformative work going into WCAG 3. Hard to switch between the two.
Rachael: We are _tentatively_ exploring the concept of what it would look like if we broke into two groups: WCAG 2 "clean" and WCAG 3 innovative transformative work. Very early discussion stages.
Rachael: Working on two draft hypothetical charters for potential groups.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to mention wcag2ict, agwg chartering update, and fast GH version
Ryladog: Splitting the group would seem like a mistake—breaking up the community and discussion.
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: Only discussion options so far. We have a survey open (until Monday midnight). Encouraging responses well before.
jamesn: Agree splitting the group would be a mistake. Chairs would be dealing with two groups; many orgs may not have enough people to go to both.
<Rachael> Just a note that proposed the chairs split and a new chair would be added.
Judy: This possibility is triggering some interesting discussions amongst W3C leadership.
tzviya: Caveat that I'm not in the community, but a big fan of WCAG: the fracture that exists will be there in the community and formally splitting things makes it easier for the chairs to manage.
Rachael: Appreciate the ACK and +1 that the biggst recognized risk is potential loss of talent. Discussion on this is very important.
Shawn's request about What WAI is working on: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-cc/2022Apr/0008.html
Judy: This is a dynamic document. Shawn sent a request on the WAICC mailing list. Remember GAAD is coming up (May 19th). We are pretty-much prepared in terms of what WAI will be promoting. There will be more people than usual looking at the list of what we're working on.
Judy: Please look at this monthly and see if some of what you're working on should be showing up there.
Ryladog: Good work!
Matthew's request about motor disability input: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-cc/2022Apr/0006.html
jb: did you get any response on this?
matthew: we were looking at motor dexterity issues, for XR hand-input module
… someone did contact me offlist to suggest someone but outside w3c
… prefer someone in w3c...
jb: I can comment from ataxia perspective if you want
Judy: We have strong direct participation from people with some disabilities, and relatively weak on others—maybe a general topic for a future coordination call.
Judy: Am I guessing right that most of our groups don't have sufficient representation from people with motor disabilities?
Ryladog: This is definitely an issue.
tzviya: Agree that there isn't enough representation from some communities, and we should have a discussion on it.
tzviya: Suggest reaching out to the WebXR community group on this specfic issue.
Judy: I know people who are facing big barriers in this area with access to XR.
ASL interpreters
<tzviya> https://
<tzviya> https://
Judy: The service we've been using has seen a surge in demand. Do any groups have current ASL interpreting needs?
FYI on W3C's plans on JTC 1 PAS and WCAG 2.2
Judy: W3C sent WCAG 2 to ISO for endorsement under the JTC 1 PAS process. Took a break for WCAG 2.1; preparing to forward WCAG 2.2 (this takes some time).
Judy: Questions/concerns/comments? Please let me know.
Ryladog: This is good.
WAI-wide glossary (from Janina)
janina: Need a reminder, progress check and we need to think about how to make it usable, and synchronize our definitions—or at least highlight when they're different by having those different definitions side-by-side, so the reasons can be understood.
janina: Need to think about how to do it, the value of consistency, and how to indicate when we're almost consistent.
jamesn: This is a great idea, but owenrship of the definitions should be with the spec that's most qualified to look after them. An entirely centralized document would be a very bad idea (from experience with ARIA). Also need to note whether definitions are normative or not.
MichaelC: The thing that held us up before is that there are 100 pages of terms; need to narrow those down.
Judy: Need another conversation on this?
MichaelC: Yes; any time.
jamesn: When we're looking through the existing definitions, we should look at things that were defined but didn't need to be.
Updates & q&a on legal entity transition
Judy: I'm encouraged with the progress I've seen. People wanted to be able to raise questions here regularly. We have seen a lot of progress on agreements recently. If you have questions, please contact me.
Judy: We could try for more time on this call next.
Judy: Anyone feeling particular need to discuss it?
<Ryladog> I would like to talk about it