Meeting minutes
<janina> /join #rqtf
Agenda Review & Announcements
IrfanAli: There won't be an update from pronunciation today
PaulG: No update from CSS planned for today, either
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
A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
Roy: no new comments this week
Bitstring Status List v1.0
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
<Roy> - spec: https://
<gb> Issue 70 Bitstring Status List v1.0 2024-01-21 > 2024-02-13 (by msporny) [LC] [REVIEW REQUESTED] [pending]
Explicit Review Requests https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues
Roy: verifiable credentials has a request
<Roy> https://
Roy: there are some accessibility considerations
Lionel_Wolberger: they are being strategic in citing a previous set of considerations
janina: inheritied concerns are fine as long as they are cited
<Fazio> I'm concerned it targets an exclusive user group
Lionel_Wolberger: when you take a data-first approach, it can be confusing. For example, a date without a timezone.
<Fazio> not inclusive of broader disabilities
Fazio: I think we're not thinking broad enough with the data-first approach
Lionel_Wolberger: you're correct. This is more screen reader user centric and images might improve accessibility for some folks
Fazio: it's common enough
janina: I just had a conversation about adding descriptions to sonic events for D/deaf users
… we can have multiple descriptions for different audiences.
<Fazio> Maur
janina: we will be updating the MAUR at some point to generally update this requirement
Lionel_Wolberger: I would love to see crypto wallet accessibility requirements
<Fazio> Maur (Media Accessibility User Requirements)
Lionel_Wolberger: so, we'll revisit the considerations in the data model because it's being inherited from a prolific group
Dr_Keith: just how far down the rabbit hole do we go with data construction? Is there something we can refer to for general guidance?
janina: what are the key points we want developers to be mindful of as they develop and implement their technology so if they need help they'll know where to get it
Dr_Keith: is there any general W3C document on how data should be structured for accessibility?
janina: no, there's not a document like that?
janina: that's an opportunity
Dr_Keith: I'll put some thought into that
PaulG: Are we talking about data guidelines? Or when a spec just specifies data, we dont put guidance, we are interested in the human computer interface
… machine to machine is out of our scope. 'we don't really care'
… for example, PNG was omitting description. Your eventual target is a human but even machines will benefit from the description
… when there is a final human to consume it, there should be capacity to accomodate different modalities
… we need to focus on the HCI
<Fazio> even macjine to machine data gets reviewed by humans for QA. Think LLM
Lionel_Wolberger: Sounds like we should look carefully for machine to machine data enrichments that can also benefit downstream human consumption
<Fazio> sorry for my typos
PaulG: I am emphasizing that this is a way to rally support from people who think they are just dealing in data without any need for human interaction
… we can remind them that LLMs and other algorithms also benefit from these types of enrichments
… so you cannot go wrong by adding a slot for description text. if it is left empty most of the time, then why do you care?
Our *AUR notes are listed here:
https://
PaulG: and if eventually, in some scenario not anticipated by the original authors, it is indeed exposed to humans, then the field may come into use
<Fazio> its even more important in beginning
janina: cross-referencing the aspects of wicg and maur that have some of this could be helpful
Fazio: Even if you are creating machine to machine tech, it is created by humans
… and those humans also include people with disabilities
… there is always a human interaction component
… take autonomous driving for example
… it is humans who are involved when errors are escalated
… we should keep these humans in mind, especially in early stage technologies
janina: the resolution is to agree to inheriting pointers and we'll update the considerations section at some point
<Roy> w3c/
<gb> Issue 70 Bitstring Status List v1.0 2024-01-21 > 2024-02-13 (by msporny) [LC] [REVIEW REQUESTED] [pending]
new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.3
<Roy> - tracker: https://
<Roy> - spec: https://
janina: the most important thing to look at is what this adds to 1.1 and 1.2
https://
CSS Update (Paul) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
no updates
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
Task Force & Deliverables Updates
IrfanAli: we're waiting for group review before wider review
janina: in COGA there's a tendency for scope creep. For instance spellcheck is out of scope in collaborative tools
… we're going to try to make it more clear where those boundaries are
<Fazio> Please try out the Accessibility Maturity Model: https://
maturity model
<Fazio> Please try out the Accessibility Maturity Model: https://
Fazio: toward the end of the year we published an update. We've had some organizations try it out and provide some feedback.
… we rely on this feedback to continue to develop the model. If you can take it and use it in your organizations and let us know how it goes.
… it will help us continue this work
janina: the goals is to move this to an APA note
janina: Benetech has implemented the model but it has taken a lot of time. We may need to help organizations with less commitment get started.
… and how to integrate with 3rd party tools and processes
Fazio: Inte, Benetech, and Dr Keith have implemented the model and given feedback
Other Business
s/Intel Intel