APA Weekly Teleconference

07 Feb 2024


Fredrik, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, mike_beganyi, nehaj, Nichole_, PaulG
janina, matatk, mike_beganyi

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Announcements

matatk: Something we should be part of

W3C Breakouts day


matatk: At TPAC, Wednesdays include breakouts

matatk: W3C is doing a Breakouts Day in March; Proposals welcome

matatk: Possible APA activities that might be appropriate include Adapt, Tooling under dev; etc

matatk: Worth submitting; worth raising on this call

matatk: Deadline for proposal is Feb 29th

Lionel_Wolberger: This is virtual TPAC?

matatk: Yes

Lionel_Wolberger: Would like to do an Adapt breakout

matatk: Suggesting Weell Known

janina: TPAC is in late September: https://www.w3.org/news-events/w3c-tpac/

New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22

A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review

Accessible Rich Internet Applications 1.3

ISSUE: w3c/a11y-request#72

spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.3/

What's changed since 1.2: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.3/#changelog

janina: This is an FPWD; we're not holding up CR.
… Best thing we can do is look at the areas that have changed, and give some early feedback
… along the lines of scope - is it too much? is there something that we think they should look into?
… There's a lot of work to do on it, and we will be asked for a final review when they go to CR.
… So: scoping concerns are most important now.

Fredrik: How does ARIA WG respond to feedback?

janina: We have a good relationship; they'll ACK our feedback, and often take things up.

janina: They also keep a list of things that they are holding for 2.0, which they may add some of our suggestions to; either way we'll find out from them - and we should look at those lists first.

ARIA 1.3 issues: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22

ARIA 2.0 issues: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22ARIA+2.0%22+

janina: If you think something missing from scope, be sure to check the 2.0 list

Explicit Review Requests https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues

Update the accessibility section 14 to include RFC 8865 for real-time text in WebRTC data channel

- issue: w3c/webrtc-pc#2931


janina: bespoke for RQTF to look at this topic. very much covered by previous discussion. most discussion should be captured by RAUR which are now an APA note

Digital Accessibility User Requirements: https://www.w3.org/WAI/research/user-requirements/

janina: approached Media Accessibilty User Requirements many years ago. This was very successful in HTML5 and have since taken on other areas in this fashion

janina: flagged this issue and read far enough to recognize what it was about (the issue at the outset of this discussion). support in comms protocols that tries to capture communication at the character level
… this is about capturing all the text coming through and what are the accessibility concerns with that

[css-scrollbars] Upgrade to Recommendation?

janina: this should be brought into RQTF, which happened today and it is in the notes

- issue: w3c/csswg-drafts#9508

matatk: moving css scrollbar to recommendation. what if scrollbars are styled and are confusing to some. is the task to come up with accessibility considerations specific to scrollbars?

<PaulG> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scrollbars/#accessibility-considerations

subtopic+ CSS Scrollbars

janina: Begins above ... Sorry!

PaulG: they have an accessibility considerations section. maybe we won't find anything new but worth a look.

tracking issue: w3c/a11y-review#184

PaulG: other considerations here which we can discuss

rssagent, make minutes

PaulG: size of the thumb, colour, contrast, making it thin, etc. Potential for lots of affordance loss

PaulG: Transparency also

PaulG: My overall caveat is to just say: if you touch these properties, you are required to meet WCAG guidelines for the scrollbar. Since you took over control, you own the scrollbar and its accessibility considerations.

janina: would like to +1 that. It's an important comment that we can use as a template
… another example is a Submit button which is customized by the author. form can be completed but not submitted
… would you rather accept boring or take on the accessibility requirements for it?

janina: you own it, you are responsible

PaulG: Don't need to fix focus in Chrome if you haven't touched it, as another example

janina: to a greater or lesser degree, the big players have paid attention to this and have done a pretty good job of it

matatk: put link to tracking issue on GitHub. I have put a comment on the issue to note areas that were not mentioned in the Accessibility Considerations section
… already got something approaching an accessibility considerations note with the number of points we've made collectively

[css-zoom?] Zoom and CSSOM

- issue: w3c/csswg-drafts#9398

- our tracking issue: w3c/a11y-review#183

PaulG: about how resize is reported while under css zoom. Argument was that some platforms tried to recalculate and some didn't and so it would be less taxing on authors and engines to return the original size and shape through the original APIs
… if used a 2x on something then it's the original but literally bigger, but where it sits is incumbent on the author if that calculation was needed

PaulG: focus not obscured didn't change, it's that the API is just setting a baseline across platforms. You still need to follow Focus Not Obscured and there's a tool to help achieve that. Intention is to make things more consistent.

janina: Trying to figure out how to close these issues. I'm inclined to work offline on this one with Mat and Paul

matatk: Maybe just close this

new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

janina: ARIA 1.3 FPWD published. See above. The link is above in the minutes.

matatk: We should look at this as a group. Maybe I'll look at it and bring back any comments.

Fredrik: I have a relaxed Friday so can take a look also

mike_beganyi: Happy to take a look at ARIA 1.3

<PaulG> I read through the changes last week and didn't see anything that jumped out.

matatk: will assign the three of us to that tracking issue and point to minutes.

CSS Update (Paul) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open

janina: anything to report on?

Fredrik: haven't looked at Device Orientation spec but will shortly

janina: expect in a few weeks or a bit longer a presentation on approach that will help us out, care of of Mat

Task Force & Deliverables Updates

isubtopic: RQTF


in COGA call, we did revisit current method between COGA and APA and that we think the process is working. Our process gave us a way to address concerns raised during process and double-check them. We're happy with our current process. This is an achievement.

Other Business

mike_beganyi: Going back to template wording on accessibility considerations: I'm happy to help, alongside someone else.

janina: A 'standard warranty paragraph' - happy to have your help; we can work on it.

janina: It may become a short general APA note we can publish.

be done

janina: Thanks everyone! Thanks mike_beganyi for scribing.

janina: thanks to all for all your contributions. Looking forward to all future endeavours with this group.

janina: We appreciate you all, and your input!

Summary of issues

  1. w3c/a11y-request#72
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).


Succeeded: s/WK/Weell Known/

Maybe present: isubtopic, spec

All speakers: Fredrik, isubtopic, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, mike_beganyi, PaulG, spec

Active on IRC: Fredrik, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, mike_beganyi, nehaj, Nichole_, PaulG