Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
Matthew_Atkinson: SAUR to be published based on positive resolution to recent CfC, thanks to all for responses. More to come
Matthew_Atkinson: no response for any additional announcements
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
<Roy> https://
roy: web RTC working group charter; this group mentioned in deliverables section - references MAUR
roy: also mention RAUR in liason section
janina: excellent, happy to have them mention MAUR, may be interesting new RQTF proposal, Collaborative AUR: CAUR but probably don't need to mention that in this charter, yet. They work will with us
<Roy> https://
Roy: Accessibility Guidelines (AG) mention APA in Working group section
janina: with functional needs moving into APA it is important that we continue to work with them; especially as focus shifts to WCAG 3 after 2.2 released;
MichaelC: since func. needs was moved into APA, it might be good to mention in liason that AG will be looking to FAST for func. needs. This group gets a lot of attention, do we want a broader review of the charter
janina: I like the idea of mentioning FAST and perhaps should mention maturity model as well
Fazio: agree to maturity model
<Roy> 2. https://
MichaelC: we should add a comment to the strategy issue for the charter to include FAST and maturity model
janina: those are two best practices that will be relevant to WCAG 3 but we do have other specs under development that will provide quantitive data that should be included: for example SAUG includes research that can be referenced. We also have WAI-ADAPT
<MichaelC> proposed add to comment ¨and collaborate on guidelines implications of APA´s AUR documents¨
janina: and add normative specifications
MichaelC: we will work on this and will see it in the list again to review the comments
A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
MichaelC: all of the comments in this category are on one feature of one spec; CSS color spec and color contrast feature
Make color-contrast() candidates optional
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() syntax is confusing
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
It should be possible to specify the contrast algorithm for color-contrast()
MichaelC: provides the ability to select a color that is WCAG 2.0 color contrast compliant. Believe we should follow and review
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() should allow specifying multiple contrast algorithms that need to be satisfied
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() should take transparency into account
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() should distinguish foreground and background
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() should support ranges of candidate colors, not just discrete color candidates
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
color-contrast() default algorithm
<MichaelC> - issue: https://
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: I have reviewed this issues; Concern that we know the contrast algorithm is going to change and don't want css to diverge from WCAG;
MichaelC: This issue has been raised and is include within the list above. Believe we need to pay attention to this. Will keep this open.
janina: is this still a working draft?
MichaelC: believe it is an early draft
janina: we should advise Silver WG about this so co-chairs of that group can help review as part of their process
Matthew_Atkinson: believe I will complete my review and then APA would have a CfC to file a comment but that doesn't seem necessary since issues have been filed by other; Should we still file an official APA comment
MichaelC: agree that Matthew_Atkinson completes his review and drafts a comment for APA to review and determine best action; If our discussion in APA concludes there are serious problems we might take a different strategy to build a case and file
janina: there is still significant work for silver to research and update contrast algorithm so want them aware
MichaelC: believe low vision task force is the better place to focus attention
Matthew_Atkinson: want to make sure time scale of a few weeks to file comment is okay
MichaelC: plan is for CSS to move to CR in a few months - so we shouldn't dawddle
Matthew_Atkinson: we filed a comment about SVG native not providing a way to alternative text, is there follow up for that?
Matthew_Atkinson: issue was filed in SVG WG tracker, the people working on spec may not be following the issues closely. We need to wait for a response. Can discuss at APA planning call
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
MichaelC: nothing new this week
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
Reporting API 1
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
MichaelC: reporting APA PaulG and Lionel_Wolberger_ have reviewed and were going to file a joint comment
<PaulG> https://
PaulG: we went through a few interactions via email; there was a CfC that was approved; see link above
Matthew_Atkinson: we agreed on the comment but did we actually send?
Matthew_Atkinson: chairs will check on status send if necessary
Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
MichaelC: verifiable credentials data model 1.0; last action was to pass to RQTF. Should we keep it open until RQTF completes review?
janina: We can mark it as complete from APA perspective, RQTF is diving into this entire space
Verifiable Credentials Use Cases
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
MichaelC: verifiable credentials use cases; that has also been passed to RQTF
VISS version 2 - Core
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
MichaelC: VISS version 2 core; there is a draft comment from Fredrik that we discussed but haven't taken action
Fredrik: I suggested we connect with person writing the spec, Ulf (we think). We discussed RQTF looking into this. Need to go back and review the minutes
Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description 1.1
<MichaelC> - tracking: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: we need to circle back on VISS
Matthew_Atkinson: Web of Things Description; we filed an issue, there was a response, we need to follow up on the response - who is responsible
janina: I am responsible for reply
Task Force & Deliverables Updates
Adapt
Lionel_Wolberger_: look into REL entity;
coga
Fazio: presentations at upcoming ICCHP conference in Italy; there is a SC under dev that addresses mental health; need more research into cognitive and technology and effects
pronunciation
PaulG: nothing new to report; may not have a meeting
RQTF
janina: major news: remote meetings nearing completion; waiting for comments from EO
Lionel_Wolberger_: tracking closely the trend towards password-less login; basic standpoint of APA has been that need to offer dual methods for authentication / biometric alternatives. When two people involved and there is a 3r party: deaf person with an interpretter; someone with a caretaker. There is also fiduciary considerations for custodial relationships
Fazio: as part of mental health progress we want to create a document for guardianship issues which mirrors what Lionel_Wolberger_ was sharing
Lionel_Wolberger_: yes 3: guardian ship, caretaker, interpretter
Matthew_Atkinson: sounds like great work in 2 different groups
maturity model
Fazio: no new news other than we are working in github
<Fazio> connect with COGA on the caretaker and guardianship
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
TPAC22 https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2022
Matthew_Atkinson: scheduling is mostly complete; chairs are on it
Fazio: is it too late for breakouts?
janina: not too late, that planning hasn't started?