Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
matatk: Something we should be part of
W3C Breakouts day
https://
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://
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/
spec: https://
What's changed since 1.2: https://
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://
ARIA 2.0 issues: https://
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/
RQTF
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://
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/
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://
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/
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/
- our tracking issue: w3c/
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
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!