Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
Janina: Did we review everything we needed for the Accessibility Maturity Model?
Fazio and Roy: Everything is in order. Roy is waiting for approval for publication.
TPAC 2025
matatk: Schedule for APA as planned. Thinking about task force breakouts.
New charters
matatk: 3 new charters: 1) PNG 2) DND 3) Web Extensions WG
PNG Working Group Charter
<matatk> w3c/
matatk: Talking about doing a PNG 4th and 5th edition. Any concerns or questions?
PaulG: I think PNG was talking about removing description.
matatk: That would be in PNG work (we can encourage them to keep description). 4th editioin due Q3 2026. 5th edition in 2028. Any comments on the charter for PNG? Any objections to the charter?
PaulG: No objections
DID Methods Working Group
<matatk> w3c/
matak: this is a new working group. Needs a bit more scrutiny.
matak: This is about DID in gov and corp but doesn't have many web interfaces. Just using http to send content.
janina: we have good contacts in there
matatk: Any concerns? None.
Web Extensions Working Group
<matatk> w3c/
matak: There was a Web Extensions Community Group. Not sure if they are keeping both the CG and adding this WB. Problems have emerged in keeping harmony between APIs
matak: I think this is really good. I don't think they need to do anything specific with accessibility. One of the proposed chairs reached out to see if we had any input. I'm hoping someone on my team will have bandwidth to follow this group. In my experience, the API itself does not have blockers for accessibility.
matak: there might be some keyboard issues, but that is more likely to be caused at the browser/user agent.
matatk: there might be barriers in how extensions are installed. But that might be outside of W3C.
matatk: I suggest we should be happy with this. Any objections? None.
New on TR
Device Bound Session Credentials
<Roy_Ruoxi> - tracker: https://
<Roy_Ruoxi> - spec: https://
Roy_Ruoxi: first doc is about session credentials. I think it is about preventing hijacking via cookies.
matatk: This is really low level. I do not think there is any UI. I'll look to see where this would plug in that would have some UI. I don't think we need to put too much scrutiny on. If there are any accessibility considerations, I will flag it to the group. How does that sound?
A Well-Known URL for Relying Party Passkey Endpoints
<Roy_Ruoxi> - tracker: https://
<Roy_Ruoxi> - spec: https://
matatk: no concerns voiced
Roy_Ruoxi: this is very low level (not a UI). well-known URLs/URIs, the exist to facilitate machine discovery, to start the flow of creating a passkey. This allows you to create a more convenient UI. Passkeys don't have UI. This is not going to have a11y implications. Any one disagree?
janina: I agree
Spec review requests
CSS UI 4
<matatk> w3c/
matatk: I think, Paul, you looked at this one, and were not concerned. I'm looking at it. Any concerns? This is about interest-for and popover? Anything interesting from your perspective Paul?
PaulG: just a refresher, when something is hovered, interest is a way to add a mechanism in CSS that allows the browser to understand when something has gained the users interest. It is replicating what can already be done in javascript. So we have good understanding of accessibility concerns already.
matatk: Thank you Paul. I'll reread it. Any issues or concerns? None heard.
Geolocation
<matatk> w3c/
matatk: I have a potential privacy concern, but that isn't accessibilty. In case you are wondering, if a user says "no, do not do geolocation" the system is currently storing that this was a user choice, not just a technical limitation, which could be a privacy concern.
<Roy_Ruoxi> https://
matatk: Strange, it is already a recommendation and not a proposed rec. Roy do you know why?
Roy_Ruoxi: they want us to review additions and corrections.
matatk: We need to have someone look at the pull requests on this to see if those additions and corrections might relate to accessibility. Who is up for looking at this?
JenStrickland: I can give it a look.
matatk: Process on the wiki, if you find an issue, you draft a comment (as described in our APA wiki)
JenStrickland: I'd like to create an issue ticket showing I'm reviewing and include my thoughts and comments. This can document that the review was done (even if no issue is found).
matatk: I wonder if this is a request to put to the tools team to make a tracking issues every time we get a spec review. This time, I'll try creating a manual tracking issue. Will that work for you Jen?
JenStrickland: I think that is fine. I really think documenting our review, whether we fin an issue or not, is important.
matatk: Does anyone want to look at issues in Section 6, just put them directly in the A11Y tracking repository. That's the APA space.
matatk: anyone have burning issues or concerns before we close?
PaulG: We not missing anything with CSS. We are good there.