W3C

– DRAFT –
APA Weekly Teleconference

12 Mar 2025

Attendees

Present
chiace, chiace7, Gottfried, janina, JonCohn, matatk, PaulG, Roy_Ruoxi
Regrets
Demelza, Dr_Keith, Fredrik
Chair
Janina
Scribe
Gottfried

Meeting minutes

<janina> /me https://rednote.net/scuba250306.mov

<matatk> regrets Fredrik

Agenda Review & Announcements

janina1: Community group on XR captioning working on a working draft

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa-admin/2025Mar/0000.html

janina1: FPWD on accessibility in AI systems. First on content creation, but other topics will be added.
… In the editor's draft, there is some more information on which topics may be added and requested for more information.

Chiara: Where can we contribute topics?

janina1: In the doc, there are instructions on contributing either by GitHub or be email.
… Your are also welcome to join the Research Questions Task Force.

chiace7: Have students working on master degree, may contribute to the topic.

janina1: We will have to add you by hand to the task force calendar and mailing list.
… Everybody in APA
… in APA is welcome to contribute to all 6 task forces
… explains status of FPWD

APA re-chartering

janina1: We hoped to make it in March, but will slip to April
… Specifications in community groups don't show on our radar. We do this for WG specs.
… So, for community groups, we will need a review process.
… Upcoming Advisory Committee meeting might empower APA to do this.
… Hopefully we will add a brief clause about TAG-identified work from certain community groups.

matatk: Good summary.

New Draft Charters

Distributed Tracing Working Group Charter

<Roy_Ruoxi> - issue: w3c/strategy#495

<Roy_Ruoxi> - charter: https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2025/distributed-tracing-wg.html

Roy_Ruoxi: Looks relative low-level, related to protocols. I am good with this charter..

janina1: Anybody objecting?

(no objection)

CSS inert review

<matatk> Background reading (from agenda announcement): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2025Mar/0004.html

<matatk> For convenience, links from the background reading, in case you need them on the call...

<matatk> Explainer for CSS carousel features (including inert): https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-overflow-5/carousel-explainer.md

<matatk> TAG design review thread (featuring Alice's comment): w3ctag/design-reviews#1055

<matatk> Background CSS WG discussion (featuring more details on the concerns): w3c/csswg-drafts#10711

<matatk> Some questions I think we need to answer...

<matatk> 1. What level of concern do we have?

<matatk> 2. Would restricting inert to the top layer be sufficient?

<matatk> 3. What questions do we have?

<matatk> Any thoughts?

matatk: Everything is in my email, no need to scribe.

<chiace7> The current proposal for interactivity: inert is not tied to visible elements, which could lead to excessive or unintentional use. Has a mechanism been considered to visually indicate the "inert" state to developers (e.g., via DevTools or a specific pseudo-class like :inert)? If so, how could this mitigate implementation risks?

matatk: Alice had this concern as well. Suggested limiting it to the top layer which are usually styled visually.

<chiace7> Is there a plan to provide clear guidelines on when interactivity: inert should (or should not) be used? For example, in carousel design, how can we ensure that developers do not make entire sections of the page inert, compromising accessibility?

matatk: We would like for APA to have a consensus on this.

matatk: We do not want to make it super easy to make mistakes.

janina1: This seems to be more of a UI concern?

matatk: It may be a bit more. It does not change presentation, but functionality and focusability of things.
… This is a new thing in CSS.

janina1: So it could be the stocking horse for other things of this kind?
… So, at some point WCAG 3.0 will need to talk about it.

matatk: Would come in as technique.
… With other complex features in CSS, the building blocks have been useful. In the context of carousels, scrolling and inertness are addressed as well.
… My concern: If people start to make things inert that are not visible... What are the other use cases for this, except carousels?

janina1: I feel we should move forward provisionally.

PaulG: I don't like carousels. Focus issues, arrow keying.
… You could do this with something else. Designers use them too much, developers do a bad job.

chiace7: Could work well in CSS. But could be overused by designers, in particular for offscreen elements.
… We need guidance on when to use it when not, regarding usability and accessibility.

<matatk> ack

matatk: There are many ways to do carousels. Trying to fit all carousels in this scheme will not work.
… We are concerned about the documentation for developers and the potential for misuse by developers.
… Interested in use cases which requires a CSS property rather than a simple HTML attribute.
… Are there other types of carousels other than apg?

PaulG: Larger list is on a different computer - will send it by email.

matatk: Propose to make an APA comment on our mailing list, expressing our concerns. Any objections?

(no objections)

janina1: We need to ask them WHY this is needed in CSS rather than HTML?

Spec review requests

webauthn-3

<matatk> Review request (public-facing thread): w3c/a11y-request#101

<matatk> Due: 2025-03-31

<matatk> Changes in this version: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-webauthn-3-20250127/#changes-since-l2

<matatk> Accessibility Considerations section: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-webauthn-3-20250127/#sctn-accessiblility-considerations

<matatk> Previous APA review, including Fredrik's comments: <https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_Authentication:_An_API_for_accessing_Public_Key_Credentials_-_Level_3>

matatk: Review in progress on Web authentication 3.
… To look at: Accessibility considerations sections, are our previous concerns addressed?

Comment review requests

Comment String Searching

<matatk> source: (Proposed APA comment, in draft)

<matatk> tracking: w3c/a11y-review#222

<matatk> previous minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/05-apa-minutes.html#eed7

matatk: This is a FPWD.
… Paul had a good comment on it. We will progress this comment as soon as possible.

janina1: We can always address coga comments later.

Email: Comment: WCAG 3.0 accessibility guidelines: Accessing a "virtual" meeting using a teleconferencing application such as Zoom - receipt of streamed text content

<matatk> source: w3c/silver#476

<matatk> tracking: w3c/a11y-review#223

matatk: About difficulty of accessing streaming text in a web conference.
… Braille reading has a "speed limit" - bandwidth is smaller for somebody who is deaf-blind.
… We need to find ways to summarize the contents of a meeting.
… It is now in the WCAG3 repository.
… There is something that could be added to the user reqs. But not sure we should do this.

<janina> https://www.w3.org/TR/ctaur/#social

matatk: For RQTF to consider...

janina1: Now we can reference it with our RTC comments.

matatk: Is there anything objective to say about this?

janina1: Hard to say. Simple solution: "Accommodate the people you have. Be mindful."

CSS Update (Paul)

janina1: Any other business?

(none)

Meeting is adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/AOA/APA/

Succeeded: s/ITTF/RQTF/

Maybe present: Chiara, janina1

All speakers: chiace7, Chiara, janina1, matatk, PaulG, Roy_Ruoxi

Active on IRC: chiace7, Gottfried, Gottfried_, janina, JonCohn, matatk, PaulG, Roy_Ruoxi