Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
close this item
TPAC 2023 planning - https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2023
matatk: We have an early wiki page and will be populating it
matatk: We'll be responding to management re cross-group requests this week
matatk: Notes that not all input from TFs is yet in the wiki
matatk: People are welcome to add to the wiki
matatk: Notes we've had good discussions
matatk: Our problem is prioritization and av available staffing cycles
matatk: Not short of inspirational people with inspired ideas!
New Charters Review - https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
Web Payments
<ghurlbot> Action 323 review Web Payments Charter by next week (on JaninaSajka) due 3 May 2023
janina: proposing to let go of it. read it, and we are mentioned in a horizontal review. we'll get to review the APIs later which is sufficient
janina: what the user experiences is very much in scope. we can throw issues their way if we find them. we can suspect APIs they generate will support the widgets we want
matatk: any thoughts on this?
matatk: no one in queue. I agree with this and thus we can sign off on this.
janina: will comment in GH
Media Interest Group
<ghurlbot> Action 324 review Media and Entertainment Interest Group rechartering (on JaninaSajka) due 3 May 2023
janina: do we need tweaks in the charter? we might want a small one. we need to make them aware that we're about to come with a list of things that would make sense for a 5-10 year time frame
janina: multiple groups across WAI that will contributing. a sentence or two acknowledging this will be helpful
janina: interesting use case out of Research Questions. we'll talk about inter-linear, supporting pronunciation
janina: cover synchronized video streams of signers in different languages, for example
janina: could be useful if we figure out technical issues.
janina: Jason has promised by Friday he will update the current document regarding the additional topics. by the time we file we will hav something to point to
janina: looking for API and other kind of support from other groups over the coming years and make as much of this happen as possible.
janina: will be extremely valuable
janina: write a phrase or two for them to consider. this is an acknowledgment that WAI is in a place with its specs that it may come with requests for standardization implications
matatk: timeline is open for review as of 3 weeks ago. I don't see any sign-off from the group yet.
matatk: good idea to set expectations in terms of collaborative opportunities. how much of that is appropriate to go into the charter versus how much is useful background
janina: agree
matatk: from their current charter, new additions could be worth mentioning. seems like there's still some time
janina: happy to work with Matthew on this during the week and provide to the group on Friday, or bring it back next week for the group's review
matatk: my concern about asking for changes to the charter is that we're going to have to make the case that the upcoming work will be great but we must finish making the case internally first
janina: we can make the case. new idea of sign language synchronization will be brought by Jason. there's a lot documented already and in the minutes from RQTF
matatk: WoT came to us and we were able to provide feedback. ended up with something in their charter which is good
janina: difference in that WoT is a WG. Media, Entertainment Interest Group is an IG
janina: an omnibus area, really
Web of Things
<matatk> w3c/
matatk: Recalls discussion some time ago with this:
:s/:/ the above/
<matatk> We had a conversation with WoT in PR #77, wrt onboarding: w3c/
<ghurlbot> Issue 77 [closed] 4.11 Text description transformation: second screen (cdpatnoe)
matatk: This is WoT's PR
matatk: Accepted but not merged?
matatk: So two threads, 375 with proposed charter and the PR with proposed edits
matatk: Propose to comment on Charter review thread to ask whether PR will be merged
matatk: Any concerns with this approach?
Explicit Review Requests - https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues
Compute API Pressure
<matatk> Background info: https://
matatk: Posted summary of last week's discussion here ...
matatk: Asked for A11y Considerations Section
matatk: Because of likely consequences of using the API--all in the above comment
matatk: Example that app shouldn't pick a stream restriction at random, should be a user choice
janina: Suggests also the reverse for a screen reader user--don't bother with video streams, I don't use them
matatk: May not be in scope on this, but let's keep it on our wish list
PaulG: Notes that Teams supports this, but not a sticky setting
Fredrik: Notes the setting is also very hard to find with an sr
PaulG: may also matter in COGA situations
PaulG: More control over modalities useful
matatk: Good news is that the group was happy for us to propose an ACS
matatk: Checks and finds it's working draft
janina: If note track may be quick
A11y Review Comment Tracker - https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
nothing this week
CSS Update (Paul) - https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
PaulG: Lots of technical work last week, but nothing for us
Actions Checkin (Specs) - https://github.com/w3c/apa/labels/action et al
covered by items already discussed
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
Task Force & Deliverables Updates
FAST Proposal
matatk: Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies
matatk: What other groups use
Fredrik: A jumping off point and a way of creating accessibility support
Fredrik: Idea is to normatively provide info on how to do that in specs
Fredrik: Invites people who want to join
Fredrik: No set timelines yet, of course
Fredrik: Expect WS by next week
<matatk> Draft work statement: https://
matatk: It's a heads up of what will be coming in a CfC shortly
matatk: Interesting because it's meta, but also shapes things
matatk: Helps feature and frame a11y support
Other Business
matatk: My announcement --
matatk: Recalls metaverse related work from APA that was submitted
matatk: Our submission totalled 9 docs
matatk: We have confirmation that W3C has pushed all upstream -- all 9
matatk: That's actually remarkable and worth noting. Well done, all!