Meeting minutes
TPAC
matatk: coordinate meetings between APA and its TFs
matatk: submit list to TPAC organizers, more info about meetings the better
janina: have a list and it's expandable. able to add navigation points to media content. would like that to support markup. we have a powerful use case in symbols. creating a table of contents for media shouldn't be a time offset and words. it should be also symbols
janina: we need to ask for markup in that part of the spec. ongoing agenda we started last year and we have the request for the "adapt-" prefix and we may have others
janina: solid reception last year. a lot of the former concern from years ago is less relevant now
Lionel: it's not exactly the depth. it's not like we have a set of useful symbols. it's more a general request to have symbols
janina: no sense of anything nest-able here currently. DAISY navigation was excellent and it's a pity it didn't have any recognition at the time
Lionel: this sounds like more of an APA issue as opposed to specifically Adapt
janina: we're all part of APA, so it's possible to be part of many meetings without being part of all
matatk: this is between WGs, we also have specific TFs that tackle TF-specific things. I agree with previous comments
matatk: one idea is that we may have started by TPAC making our own versions of well-known URI specs. if we make one fully, we should make one that specifies which ones are supported
matatk: should meet with the original group who authored the first so that we can collaborate on optimal process for implementation
janina: strong Adapt interest in that. whether that's nesting in global accessibility architecture or something else
janina: what level do we bring in Adapt-specific tree?
Lionel: these are so important. help me understand that as chairs of Adapt we are responsible for these things.
Lionel: markup for rich media, but lack the tools at the moment.
Lionel: finish gap analysis, then we can determine who (CSS, for example) to determine what markup can be
matatk: almost certainly would have a meeting with CSS
matatk: don't want to talk architecture deeply, but I feel the common destinations COGA identified shouldn't be underneath accessibility
matatk: would advise against over-scoping
Lionel: suggesting changing direction, then?
matatk: most of those destinations would be what people want to do on a site. nothing preventing relation to an attribute.
matatk: lots to do on that, but seems beyond the scope of this topic
matatk: not sure we will need to talk to i18n about issues around symbols attribute
matatk: if we have concerns, we can certainly meet with them
matatk: great resource and very much into a11y
janina: just in queue to agree with you, Mat. up-levelling for the sake of curb cut effect
janina: meeting with i18n still possible, depending
Lionel: agree
Russell: specifically for YouTube chaptering, would be relatively easy coding-wise. Google could champion this idea of chaptering and would provide a lot of encouragement for our proposals
Lionel: captions derive from SRT standard. powerful idea but could be a deep-rooted issue that involves a lot of consideration for backwards-compatibility
janina: it is manageable but has to be verified. if an old browser interacts, then issues could ensue if issues are not compatible
A11y4Children ontology follow-ups
Sharon: any follow-up to discuss?
Sharon: any activities that need to occur
Lionel: sent notes. there are many follow-ups. identified another research paper that had a lot of headings that we are interested in. found a similar and sympathetic ontology
Lionel: determine next step. could be gap analysis, moving to Research Questions, etc.
matatk: felt that there is a lot of useful reading material. user profiles and simplification aspect are interesting for our purposes.
matatk: two things I think we should do: 1) as we determine mainstream simplification, Bob's work will help
matatk: and 2) it turns out two other people are very familiar with UDL , mike_beganyi and Paul
matatk: Mike has good experience with this
janina: there is a research question here we could review in that TF. we should structure it as a question
janina: what kind of output are we looking for? members of the RQTF can get access to those vital research papers
Lionel: acknowledge that UDL is well-regarded as a set of practices, but the semantics are curated by CLIPPS and NSF
Lionel: suggest the question to RQTF is something like "we have this citation, is it sufficient?"
matatk: forgot to acknowledge Lionel's experience. slipped my mind earlier, so apologies
Lionel: would like to peek at Gap Analysis, please
Gap Analysis, https://github.com/w3c/adapt/wiki/Gap-Analysis
<Sharon> https://
Lionel: assess heading structure and determine if anything is missing
janina: Charles may be able to offer assistance on defining scope for DPUB section
janina: would suggest assistance regarding that specific question as we do a gap analysis what we should look at in DPUB
Sharon: Lionel can you do that?
Lionel: yes, will do