Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
CfC Elevating Maturity Model to Task Force httpS://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/maturity-model/work-statementtatus
<janina> https://
janina: The above is an email from one of the co-facilitators, explaining why W3C is doing this work. Does this allay your concerns?
<janina> https://
Lionel_Wolberger: I'm involved in this work. I support the proposed CfC.
<janina> https://
janina: Asking differently: anyone opposed to the CfC?
Fredrik: I'd like the CfC.
matatk: I wasn't clear on point 7 in the email; is there another example? (Not opposed to CfC.)
<PaulG> +1
<PaulG> (support removal of #7)
Fredrik: Maybe best to leave that point out (seems confused, and technologies change rapidly anyway).
janina: We should ask the MM group to clarify or drop that one.
janina: Others OK with that approach?
+1 (others already +1'd)
APA Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/charter.html
janina: Nothing changed since last week; still seeking comments and questions.
Payments Security IG Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981
APA Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/charter.html
Here's the pretty link: https://
Payments Security IG Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981
janina: Lionel_Wolberger had a look at this, and raised some issues about UI, and what was included.
… We were invited by WPSIG leadership to join their management call, which matatk and I did yesterday.
… It was an aha! moment, as they're fully supportive of accessibility, but are currently working on lower-level things. There are some things coming up that may need our input, and they're happy to liaise with us then.
… They are not working on the same things (e.g. wallet UIs) as Verifiable Credentials. The focus is narrower, specifically on payments.
… The VC work is less tied to browsers.
… We laid out what we're looking for in the short-term future, and longer-term aspirations (as per last TPAC).
… Their focus remains on registration-free secure payments, though there was no objection to our work/aims. There was FIDO representation there, and they're looking into what process may be used to liaise with us (membership and IP considerations ongoing).
… We expect to hear back from them, as there was the desire to work jointly.
janina: Any considerations/concerns (specifically related to the charter)?
janina: They said let's get together at TPAC, which reminds me...
… TPAC will be the 11th to 15th of September, in Seville :-).
janina: Lionel_Wolberger: does this allay any concerns?
Lionel_Wolberger: sounds great; let's make the meetings happen.
PROPOSED Private Advertising Technology Working Group https://www.w3.org/2022/08/PROPOSED-PATWG-charter.html
janina: New group being proposed to find a way to allow the advertisting industry to add adverts to web content, and collect data from the user without disclosing who they are (and, one assumes, without disclosing they have a disability - though that is not explicitly stated).
… We signed off on this group back last May, but I now have some additional concerns, partly due to the work we did in Adapt. IIRC we signed off with a caveat, but not sure if that has been reflected in the draft charter.
… I also have concerns about how we preserve people's anonymity, or the masking of their disability, or their ability to read the ads (COGA implications; maybe distracting).
… Some users with disabilities may want to read the ads, but need an accessible way to do so.
… My list of things that I'd add, if we were looking at this with perhaps a little more forethought than we did last May,
… would include demarcating where the ad starts and ends. Also, adding an ad into a page should not do anything to break its accessibility.
… Do you share these concerns?
Lionel_Wolberger: Sites tend to offer slots in which to place ads, so the chance of an ad changing the page outside of itself is unlikely.
… The tendency for ads to slide in/out seems to have stopped.
… However there is something powerful in what you said, which is that given a page has a certain level of accessibility, we don't wnat an ad to come in and lower the accessibility.
Lionel_Wolberger: I think this is a concern we could raise fruitfully.
janina: Could this include a keyboard trap?
Lionel_Wolberger: Actually yes, on reflection, though ads don't tend to have a lot of keyboard interactivity.
… Today the bane of the web is autoplaying video.
PaulG: Reminds me of the Reporting API conversation at TPAC. I think this'd be a fantastic use case becuase the brokering is on-demand. People who have a UA/plugin that reports accessibility issues within ads, that ad could get downgraded within the brokering conglomerate. You could have an agreement with them that you (as a site provider)
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to Paul's idea of Reporting API could report back to the RTB ad-provisioning system
PaulG: only want ads that meet a certain level of accessibility. Some consideration would be needed wrt anti-competitive behavior, but this could empower users (especially e.g. with distracting content).
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to "Accessibility Reporting API"
+1 to Paul's ideas!
niklasegger: +1 to all of the above. Just to add something about videos: it is theoretical possible that the video displays some flickering content, which is a huge risk to some people.
janina: Another excellent point.
+1
janina: When we signed off, they went to AC vote, which failed. They're trying again.
janina: Seems like there are still some votes against the new charter. We need people who can vote, i.e. AC reps, to make a formal objection.
janina: I think there are several here who are formal members.
janina: We can then work with this group to close them.
matatk: Privacy concerns: Are we more concerned if people are for instance using the ADAPT plugin?
janina: We brought it up perhaps in May last year. I'll find it and post it to list.
<matatk> matatk: +1 again to PaulG's ideas; it's a really positive way to approach ads.
<matatk> janina: Ads can be fun, and we should have access to them.
<matatk> janina: Are the bounding boxes for ads semantically identifiable? Yes?
<matatk> PaulG: They should be marked with a landmark or something.
<matatk> matatk: Something about marking content, and privacy: need user to be able to opt out of some types of content, for health reasons, without giving away PII.
<matatk> janina: The vote is open to February 10. When I find our previous comment, I'll post that to the list, along with this date.
<matatk> ... Please reach out to your AC rep to express these accessibility concerns.
<matatk> matatk: Suggest we work on a comment to give to AC reps about this.
<matatk> janina: +1; please comment on list
<matatk> Fredrik: +1
<matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: There can be malware in advertising, with commercial solutions having been devised. This proposed approach is similar to that. We do have a tall hill to climb.
<matatk> ... There was an article about prior efforts in this area.
<Lionel_Wolberger> FYI https://
Review Requests https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues
<matatk> janina: This will become a stock agenda item. It is not the dashboard, but it's like the dashboard.
<matatk> janina: Whe groups ask for an APA review, that starts the clock ticking. These requests are formal (and we also receive via email) and we only have 30 days to respond.
<matatk> janina: The latest one: https://
<matatk> ... Secure Payment Confirmation 2023-01-11 > 2023-02-01
<matatk> PaulG: They have an accessibility considerations section.
CSS Update (Paul) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
<matatk> PaulG: I reviewed Web Locks; it's very low-level; fine to pass on it.