Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
matatk: Janina is in NY now!
matatk: And she is on the call as well, which is excellent.
TPAC 2023 planning - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2023
matatk: We do have a few meetings arranged now. A few others inprogress with the arranging.
matatk: Some chats have been had in TFs about what we want to present.
<matatk> w3c/
matatk: Everyone is strongly suggested to submit a breakout for the TPAC agenda.
New Charters Review - https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
Roy: No new charters this week.
Explicit Review Requests - https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues
[css-color-6] `contrast-color()` MVP in Level 5
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: CSSWG talking about contrast on white or black backgrounds.
Roy: That's a request for comment.
matatk: There are several historical CSS colour comments for review. Maybe we should have a look at those later on in the meeting.
matatk: This one is definitely a new one.
matatk: @PaulG are you aware of this one?
<gb> @PaulG
PaulG: Not particularly, but it is coming up.
matatk: We should come back to this and maybe the other CSS colour issues to see if we can discount any of them as having been overcome by events.
DAPT 2021-07-18 #66
<gb> Issue 66 Accessibility Semantics (by jasminelelis) [XAUR]
<matatk> w3c/
<matatk> aka Dubbing and Audio description Profiles of TTML2
matatk: We got pingeed on this because they f8iled in the a11y checklist.
matatk: Janina is assigned to review it.
matatk: Are they wanting to go to CR?
Roy: For now it is a normal WD.
Roy: They are requesting all feedback by Sept 10.
Roy: They want our review because they are garhtering feedback in preparation for TPAC discussions.
A11y Review Comment Tracker - https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
New on TR - http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
Roy: Nothing to see here.
CSS Update (Paul) - https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
PaulG: There was one issue I was following. I think it's fine.
PaulG: It's about word breaking. I18n has been looking at it. They aree taking ot the language component from the parameters. Frankly, I think it's goingot be fine. I was thinking about readability, but otherwise it seems nice and tidy.
<PaulG> w3c/
matatk: I've got a list of CSS colour comment requests.
matatk: There are two things other groups can ask us to do in terms of review: one is horizontal review, the other is reviewing an issue before it gets into a spec.
matatk: There was a lot of talk aroudn colour contrast and contrast colour. Whcih algorithm do we use to understand what the contrast is?
matatk: There is the one in WCAG right now, but there has also been a lot of talk about if that is the right algorithm to use.
matatk: The current one says black on red is easier to use than white on red, which is unusual.
matatk: A lot of the issues have been closed, probably because they are being bumped for future consideration.
matatk: I'm going to ask @PaulG for some input and while he is talkign, I will look for a URL I am thinking of.
<gb> @PaulG
PaulG: There are a few things here. One of the possible Use Cases is for animation and anything moving, keeping the text readable on the background even though it's moving.
PaulG: The other one that comes to midn is for automatically swapping colours when there is user control, when there is user agent stylesheets or other factors that have been determined by not the author.
PaulG: There is a future proofing aspect as well, but I'll need to check exactly how that is supposed to work out.
<matatk> Here are all of our CSS Color issue comment review requests: https://
matatk: One thing that sticks in my mind frfom the last time this ocnversation was had is that there seems to be no keenness on having potentioanl updates to the algorithm retroactively applied to existing stuff. I can see both sides of it. If you are doing this to express intent, it seem sq uite apropriate that there could be a default that you had to accept, but if the results changed, they would change for the better.
PaulG: There was an alagorithm selection parameter at one point. I could pick auto, meaning a best guess and the browser would update its default if it turned away from the current default.
PaulG: If I want to design somethign now, and a11y specs are always moving forward, wouldn't it be nice if the site said: we move with the times.
PaulG: Any little thing that can help people stay in conformance with a11y requirements with a s little code as possible is a good thing.
matatk: I agree fully. I am happy you will be there to make those points shoudl it be needed, @PaulG.
matatk: There's probably too muuch work here to reasonabily expect Paul to do it all. But we might spend a little time on it at TPAC.
matatk: We need to schedule time at TPAC to find out if anything should be closed and if so, what.
matatk: Assigning the triaging timing to @PaulG.
PaulG: That all sounds very good.
Actions Checkin (Specs) - https://github.com/w3c/apa/labels/action et al
<niklasegger> w3c/
<matatk> Specific comment for us to approve: w3c/
matatk: Reading Niklas' wording on focus trapping in modal dialogs.
<janina> +1 to Niklaus' comment; maybe a grammar nit as read?
Aye!
matatk: Perhaps a short CFC is in order.
janina: Minimum for CFCs is 48 hours. This is uncontroversial. End of work week would be fine.
matatk: That sounds good. I can send that out then.
matatk: Hats off to Niklas, anyway. A very accessible and unconfusing explanation!
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
Task Force & Deliverables Updates
matatk: Any news from the TFs, as in any new thing?
janina: We could use a wiki for the MM spreadsheet so that we have a permanent URI for that.
<Roy> https://
<Roy> https://
<matatk> RQTF has a wiki that seems to be a sort of sub-wiki of the APA one: https://