Meeting minutes
Introduction, updates.
matatk: I will be presenting about WKD at the W3C AC 2024 meeting!
<Lionel_Wolberger> ... a lightning talk of the version we did for breakout day
janina: +1 to this being significant; the AC will ultimately have to vote on the spec.
Symbols: Issue 240 Way Forward. Vocabulary.
matatk: russell and I worked on wording, and are happy with it. We need to figure out if we can post it or not (it uses some code points from the proposed unicode set).
russell: The document those come from is on a public server, so we could post our comment.
<Lionel_Wolberger> russell: Just FYI, saw a video comparing emojis with Chinese radicals
Lionel_Wolberger: There are no other open on symbols. We wanted to use some time to talk about vocabulary involved; get clear on the concepts; revise our explainer; re-issue the FPWD in line with that.
matatk: Suggest we ask once more about posting the comment on #240; give a deadline of a week.
<gb> Issue 240 Could we build symbolic annotations with existing Web standards? (by DuncanMacWeb) [i18n-tracker]
russell: will do
janina: We'll need to issue an update of the registry. The symbols module is CR now, but will also need to be updated.
Lionel_Wolberger: So, to check, we're adding unicode code points to the registry?
russell: Yes (re the term) but we can't add them yet because they're not official yet.
Lionel_Wolberger: Publication date still unknown?
janina: We could update the editors draft
matatk: I think we should _not_ publish the draft code points - but we do have a lot of work (other than that) to do, as #240 is settling, and as we update our explainer and Symbols CR.
Lionel_Wolberger: ACK. What is the term for when Unicode publishes the updated standard?
russell: It is 'publishing'
Lionel_Wolberger: At that moment, we'll want a persuasive Explainer, which will include the language we've struggled with, and we've not yet concluded those discussions.
russell: correct
matatk: +1
Lionel_Wolberger: Then we want at least two implementations. Can we work in parallel to get those going? My instinct is we should finish the language debate first. Then we can use that to get implementers on board.
Lionel_Wolberger: Let's talk vocab!
Lionel_Wolberger: When we last left off, we were struggling with saying a key sentence...
<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger: Today, people use icons, emojis, pictographs, and other non-alpha-numeric symbols to communicate, and there is currently no method to indicate the semantic meaning conveyed by said symbol.
Lionel_Wolberger: Plus, the order in which we list these is important.
Lionel_Wolberger: The explainer can then convey what we need in order to fulfil this need.
russell: What's the context?
Lionel_Wolberger: The explainer - document intended for decision makers and general public to understand why W3C went to this effort.
russell: What's not in that statement is anything about AAC. If we lead with emoji, people's minds will go there, but I think our real purpose or goal is to make things accessible, that's what we're here for.
Lionel_Wolberger: Absolutely. I think AAC is only one of the set because I've found that when we go into the AAC community, it has a highly specific therapeutic context, and there isn't a burning need to translate AAC boards.
russell: The need is more for people whose reading isn't very good, so they need translating between text and their regular symbols, as opposed to between symbol sets.
russell: If emoji does become more popular, then in future if you're a kid learning to read/write, then that may become the main AAC language. There are a lot more people working on it, exchanging ideas; could be a good thing for non-speaking people. However, that's a long road, and there would be a lot of people who feel otherwise.
russell: I have the URL for the video mentioned above...
<russell> https://
russell: It's called "Hanmoji", by Jennifer 8 Lee
russell: Jennifer is on the emoji committee. Jennifer proposed an emoji.
Lionel_Wolberger: We'll pursue these issues in next meetings; thank you russell.
TPAC presentation report
<gb> Issue 10 Exploring making site navigation more accessible, with "well-known destinations" (by matatk) [session]
Lionel_Wolberger: I want to make clear to people that what we're standardising here is a 'folder structure' on a site, that allows for the automatic discovery of WKDs.
Lionel_Wolberger: I think we need to make that clear, and then say 'here is what will happen when we do that'
matatk: +1
janina: I agree; I got the sense people weren't grokking what we were talking about; not too sure about what to do about it.
Abhinav: +1
janina: I think the earlier example confused people. I think we could show all the different variations of 'log in' and 'sign in' - and talk about where to look for it on the page. First you have to find it. You can't issue a find/search for it, as you can't remember what term was used on a given site.
matatk: One reason we structured it that way is that we wanted to associate with Adapt and explain why Adapt took this up
… port 80 is a good exemplar of 'well known'
… +1 that a user cannot search for login, sign in, log on, sign on
janina: Allows us to focus on the function of authenticating without needing to know in advance its particular expression on screen
ACTION: matatk: Slides for AC2024 due 2024-03-26
<gb> Created action #265
Lionel_Wolberger: Could use a red circle to highlight how things move around on different sites. You could struggle to find it if you had a situational disability.
Lionel_Wolberger: Concept 1: things are hard to find
Lionel_Wolberger: Concept 2: we can give you a simple way to do a bounce to the location you want to get to
Lionel_Wolberger: Concept 3: it can be machine discoverable; you can get a list.
Lionel_Wolberger: how's explainer writing going?
matatk: Need to do another pass over it. Also started spec writing but nothing public yet - would aim to by 2024-04-02
Lionel_Wolberger: I think the 3 concepts should be reflected in the Explainer
matatk: ACK. Explainer is supposed to go from use cases, so fits that model (not sure exactly on number of concepts) but if the Explainer doesn't cover that stuff, it's a bug, which we can fix :-).
Lionel_Wolberger: We want to make sure we're focusing on the infrastructure underlying the work we're doing.
Lionel_Wolberger: For WKD what's our path forward? First draft of spec? Explainer? Then we can go to TAG?
Lionel_Wolberger: We wanted to touch base with TAG on the IANA dependency; is that right?
janina: I think that'll take care of itself by way of matatk's TAG involvement, AC talk, etc. I think we work on FPWD to articulate what we want to do.
janina: I wouldn't worry about asking anyone for input until FPWD.
Lionel_Wolberger: By TPAC?
janina: seems reasonable.
Lionel_Wolberger: Let's take that up as a challenge! Let's do it!
matatk: +1; TAG can review stuff w/o a spec, the Explainer is key, but we could wait to FPWD, as long as we have the Explainer.
janina: We need to clarify our shortlist of WKDs. E.g. login/auth/...
janina: which items would be want?
Lionel_Wolberger: contact us, login, cart, accessibility statement, home, about
matatk: The list came from COGA - we should kick off asking them for an update (not to make it bigger)?
Lionel_Wolberger: ACK
janina: I meet with COGA regularly; will take it under advisement.