Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
<Fazio> Maturity Model coming soon!
IE Survey
janina: Plese check your mailboxes including spam folders. W3C has a new developement officer (Sylvia Cadena) who has asked the W3C for information. It is a way to get the organisation to serve us all better.
janina: It's a SurveyMonkey survey, so who knows about a11y.
janina: This is one for all Invited Experts. Please let the W3C know what you think.
janina: There have been troubles with the survey link, though. We'll see.
APA Charter
<Roy_Ruoxi> w3c/
Roy_Ruoxi: That means our charter is going to the hext step of the process: Horizontal Review!
Roy_Ruoxi: I've been sending things around and things are moving along as they pretty much should.
Roy_Ruoxi: I have pointed to our CFC and also roped the WAI team into the process.
Horizontal Review
matatk: We have been slowly moving into the Github process of tracking and doing HRs and so on.
matatk: One of the thignsis that we are awanting to ask for one of our repos to be renamed, since the naes are confusing.
matatk: Specifically, a11y/request and a11y/review but others too.
matatk: We're talking about this.
matatk: We're also still working on documentation and suchlike.
matatk: My newest new starter Ananya has been working on easy to fill in HTML versiosn of the TAG and FAST checklists.
matatk: We're quite excited about hte progress being mad there.
matatk: There's a lot we may be able to do with the FAST checklist. For starters, we want to make it easy for people ot fill it in and track their porgress via GithHub issue.
matatk: We might decide to as a group doing things along the lines of what others have done, such as doing things rather more inline than just linking to WCAG etc.
matatk: There's definitely going to be some opportunities for evolution over time. For starters, we are going to make it very much easier for people writing specs to do a self review against the list.
matatk: WE might have a near final version of that next week or the week after that.
matatk: Whilst it isn't something we see as reviewers, it is still vital that we make the spec authors jobs as smooth as possible.
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkzakim, open next item
TPAC 2025
Roy_Ruoxi: Do we have a resolution for the label we want to use? If so, I can check if there is anything Philip can do for us.
matatk: I'm happy to send the e-mail I drafted to explain why we're asking for it. There is something more I want to do before sending off that.
janina: It may be worthwhile to get an answer from Felipe before we do the e-mail.
matatk: I'll e-mail Roy and Janina after this.
matatk: TPAC stays on the agenda until after TPAC.
<Fazio> Maturity Model Meeting?
(OT: was there ever an impressionist doing TPAC Shakur?)
matatk: Let's think of working group meetings and working meetings.
*Breakout Day: so called because of people really, really sweating it.)
matatk: Don't forget, TPAC is mid-November this year.
matatk: We will be asked to provide what working group meetings and working meetings and breakouts we want for TPAC and should answer on a WG level.
Fazio: We will most porbably have a publication of the MM 1.0 a couple of months before TPAC. It would be neat to have a W3C-wide meeting about it concerning feedback, how the MM will affect other parts of the W3C and so on. To co-design.
Fazio: TPAC is interesting for doing just this kind of thing.
<matatk> https://
janina: There will be a publication in a ouple of weeks based off of the document on GitHub. Then, in a few morem weeks, there will be an APA note called Accessibility Maturity Model.
matatk: There's to threads here: 1) Let's shout about it: then it should go outside the W3C, and that sounds like a breakout; and 2) something where input should come from within the W3C. Looking at whatever it mayb e that Fazio needs, or the MMTF needs, those avenues can both or individually be pursued.
New on TR
Roy_Ruoxi: Nothing here.
Audio Session
<matatk> w3c/
<matatk> Due: 2025-04-24
matatk: We had some good discussions about this. Ive just sent a message to the list about it.
<matatk> https://
matatk: Paraphrasing the comment, in response to the one proposed by Janina: The key issue is that we want to raise awareness that hte user might be using AT (text to speech or audio icons or earcons or whatever) and there's a couple of consequences of that: one is that they may have stron gpreferences as to what devices they get out of and what
volumes that is. The current state of the art is that some operating systems will duck the volume of stuff that isnt the AT when the AT is speaking. Also, they allow you to reroute things to different devices while probably not doing the ducking.
matatk: Thsi spec mentions that this haappens but doesn't make it clear whether there should be a changeh here.
matatk: The scond thign is very obvious. Under no circumstances must the webpage become aware that an AT is running. The whole platform is designed around this. So there should be slight risk of disagreement.
matatk: Maybe this is about the webpage doing its thing and the operating system doing the rerouting and nonducking and so on. Or it is about webpages getting hints from the webpage for sugested behavious.
matatk: We should bmek people aware that these thigns are running.
matatk: I would like those two clarifications in: 1) we don't want the webpage to know that AT is running and 2) question the AS people about the scope of the spec.
matatk: I dont think we need to discuss it in any more detail reallly.
janina: I have no problems about asking about the scope; in the case of 1, I dropped that into the privacy implications language that is currently in the draf.t I can think of circumstances where a user would be perfectly okay with a webpage knowing about AT: It is something I have a trusted relationship with, it is something that gives me
benefits, and so on. As a result of knowing this, it is able to give a better service than would otherwise be the case.
<Fredrik> +1 on Janina
matatk: It might be worth us thinking about some use cases with such exceptions.
janina: This becomes a pri vacy conversation and not one about audio content on the web then.
Fredrik: Is this a working group meeting (the whole privacy and AT issue)?
matatk: Thanks for that
Is there a snubtopic keyword to cancel out a subtopic?
Spec review requests
<PaulG> w3c/
matatk; This is actually not the place, but what the skunk.
[css-anchor-position-1] Improve accessibility guidance
source: w3c/csswg-drafts#10311
tracking: w3c/
PaulG commented on the APA tracking issue
PaulG: Just reaing through and trying to understand what hte issues are and wheere the gap is in those examples and those three examples come to mind as the most precient.
matatk: I thin, your suggestions are spot on.
matatk: We konw there is this issue, it has been highlighted. They are asking for our feedback on what should be included, what wording, what should be provided. Anyone on this call happy to make these examples or just look at the wording of this section, you can do it in this APA thread or wherever you want. On list, on this thread is fine
(perhaps even better). Calling all volunteers!
PaulG: Tooltip is a contentiojs lightning rod. Know that that one is oging to draw ire from a11y experts.
PaulG: The real purpose of this implications section is to demonstrate that this anchor positioning API does not do anything to satisfy the requirements that we have for these pattersn for a11y It does not take care of the aria_descripton, or aria-labelledby, or anything. It would be interesting to maybe put a native disclosure like dialog next to
a completely aria-driven example to further demonstrate what the system is providing. The expanded property, I think it gets mapped with the a11y APIs. It can be as a fallback. The open/close property of detailed summary for instance, takes care of that heuristic.
PaulG: If we were to draw out the aria example, then it would make it a bit more explicit that authors need to provide this.
Neha: Thanks PaulG for giving us the direction. I was also thinking of adding some examples too. Maybe modals or aria-live? I could try to add and then review if that's what we want to propose.
PaulG: I think dialogs/popovers would fall under the popover API example. Happy to review. Whatever we come up with it needs to get into the eyeballs of folks like Adrian and Scott O'Hara