12:38:32 RRSAgent has joined #apa 12:38:36 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/08-apa-irc 12:38:36 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:38:37 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), janina 12:38:54 Meeting: APA Weekly Teleconference 12:39:13 Date: 08 Jul 2026 12:39:17 Chair: Janina 12:41:57 agenda+ Agenda Review & Announcements 12:41:57 agenda+ [TPAC 2026](https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2026/tpac-2026/) 12:41:57 agenda+ New charters review 12:41:57 agenda+ New on TR 12:41:57 agenda+ WebMCP - should it be adopted as W3C work? (Continued from last week.) 12:42:00 agenda+ [Spec review requests](https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues) 12:42:02 agenda+ [Issue tracking](https://github.com/w3c/a11y-tracking/issues) 12:42:05 agenda+ CSS Update (Paul) 12:42:07 agenda+ Actions Checkin 12:42:10 agenda+ Other business 12:42:12 agenda+ Be done 13:02:10 /join #rqtf 13:59:04 Fazio has joined #apa 13:59:11 marcelo has joined #apa 14:00:02 matatk has joined #apa 14:00:06 present+ 14:00:10 agenda? 14:02:34 present+ 14:02:57 present+ 14:03:01 present+ 14:03:44 Neha has joined #apa 14:03:45 scribe+ 14:03:48 present+ 14:03:49 PaulG has joined #apa 14:04:15 present+ 14:06:15 zakim, next item 14:06:15 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Announcements -- taken up [from janina] 14:06:30 Dylan has joined #apa 14:07:23 tsaulter has joined #apa 14:07:32 present+ 14:08:36 zakim, who's here? 14:08:36 Present: matatk, janina, marcelo, Fazio, Neha, PaulG, tsaulter 14:08:38 On IRC I see tsaulter, Dylan, PaulG, Neha, matatk, marcelo, Fazio, RRSAgent, Zakim, gb, wendyreid, janina, nicolo-ribaudo, alice, jyasskin, vmpstr, slightlyoff, chrishtr, astearns, 14:08:38 ... Rachael, alastairc, Roy_Ruoxi 14:11:32 Dr_Keith has joined #apa 14:11:41 present+ 14:12:42 chiace has joined #apa 14:13:23 zakim, who's here? 14:13:23 Present: matatk, janina, marcelo, Fazio, Neha, PaulG, tsaulter, Dr_Keith 14:13:26 On IRC I see chiace, Dr_Keith, tsaulter, Dylan, PaulG, Neha, matatk, marcelo, Fazio, RRSAgent, Zakim, gb, wendyreid, janina, nicolo-ribaudo, alice, jyasskin, vmpstr, slightlyoff, 14:13:26 ... chrishtr, astearns, Rachael, alastairc, Roy_Ruoxi 14:13:42 present+ 14:14:59 present+ 14:16:58 q+ 14:17:54 MSF XR Accessibility Guidelines v1.0 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wRHflVnJhRqZh6IvVAbWZGm0qXrkcJ2RxdRNaQjsMdY/edit?tab=t.hh6gaban3mkb 14:18:35 dylan@drfoxdesign.com 14:19:09 ack dy 14:19:14 ack ma 14:19:37 Dylan shared new XR accessibility guidelines from the Metaverse Standards Forum and asked this group for feedback. 14:19:37 The response was that this work likely fits best with the Research Questions Task Force, which is already doing a gaming gap analysis. The next discussion on that is planned for August 4. 14:21:06 Dylan said they are collecting input through comments on the Google Doc and a Google feedback form. The feedback form should be linked at the top of the document. They mentioned July 31 as the target date, but said feedback after that will still be used. 14:21:26 zakim, next item 14:21:26 agendum 2 -- [TPAC 2026](https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2026/tpac-2026/) -- taken up [from janina] 14:21:46 You can contact all three of the chairs (myself, James Maki, and Michael Cooper) at accessibility-chair@lists.metaverse-standards.org 14:22:06 Support fund: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/W3C-Apply 14:22:19 Why come to TPAC? https://medium.com/samsung-internet-dev/reflections-from-w3cs-annual-conference-kobe-japan-2025-4cf1c233bdb8 14:22:43 JonCohn has joined #apa 14:23:39 matatk - said there was not much new versus last week. reposted the links already in the agenda, including the support fund information. there are two different support funds, and which one to use depends on eligibility. Why come to TPAC blog post, describing last year’s trip, what people got involved in, and how the meetings work. 14:23:53 present+ 14:24:30 Janina - strongly backed going to TPAC. She said it is W3C’s annual meeting and that APA gets a lot of its work done there. Her point was that attending is especially valuable for the group’s planning and progress. 14:25:20 matatk - July 31, 2026, closing at midnight UTC - They suggested submitting by **July 30** just to be safe 14:25:25 zakim, next item 14:25:25 agendum 3 -- New charters review -- taken up [from janina] 14:27:50 I may invite a colleague from University of Galway to present on our Neurodiversity Soft Skills work 14:28:05 WebAppSec WG Charter (APA thread): https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues/168 14:28:37 zakim, next item 14:28:37 agendum 4 -- New on TR -- taken up [from janina] 14:28:45 zzakim, close this item 14:28:47 zakim, next item 14:28:47 agendum 4 was just opened, janina 14:28:56 zakim, close this item 14:28:56 agendum 4 closed 14:28:57 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:28:57 5. WebMCP - should it be adopted as W3C work? (Continued from last week.) [from janina] 14:29:02 zakim, next item 14:29:02 agendum 5 -- WebMCP - should it be adopted as W3C work? (Continued from last week.) -- taken up [from janina] 14:30:35 Matatk said WebMCP is a proposal for websites to describe what they can do in a way that browser-based agents could understand and use directly, instead of relying on simulated clicks, typing, visual analysis, or digging through the accessibility tree. 14:31:14 Matatk - question was whether this WebMCP protocol should become an official deliverable in the Web Machine Learning group’s charter, and what the accessibility implications of that would be. 14:32:03 Matatk said they seem open to experimenting with WebMCP, but there are still real privacy and accessibility concerns that the group needs to think through before deciding how to respond. 14:32:41 Initial draft of proposed APA comment: https://github.com/w3c/a11y-tracking/issues/317#issuecomment-4914862049 14:35:56 q+ 14:36:04 q? 14:36:06 Matatk said his proposed comment is that the accessibility tree should not carry WebMCP-style agent information because it serves a different purpose, and even if people disagree on that, it is still too risky to mix in because it could be abused and pollute the accessibility tree. 14:36:50 Matatk said the group should review and edit his draft comment on the accessibility-tree question this week so he can post an APA response by the end of the week, and then next week they can discuss the bigger question of whether WebMCP itself is a good protocol. 14:36:57 ack p 14:39:08 PaulG said his main questions are whether agent-facing forms are real visible forms or hidden agent-only ones that could clutter the accessibility tree, and whether JavaScript-exposed capabilities given to agents are also available and explained to assistive technology users so people know an agent could unlock extra features. 14:39:09 q? 14:39:22 aulG got more specific about where the real concerns might be: he said WebMCP currently seems to expose functionality in two main ways, through normal HTML forms and through JavaScript or the page’s document model; for forms, he said the group should clarify whether these are standard visible forms that people can also use, or hidden forms added 14:39:22 mainly for agents, because hidden agent-only forms could create noise or clutter in the accessibility tree; for the JavaScript side, he asked whether the capabilities being exposed to agents are also available to everyone else, and whether users of assistive technology would be told that these extra capabilities exist and may require turning on an 14:39:22 agent to access them, especially since people may not want agents enabled all the time for privacy or security reasons. 14:39:30 PaulG got more specific about where the real concerns might be: he said WebMCP currently seems to expose functionality in two main ways, through normal HTML forms and through JavaScript or the page’s document model; for forms, he said the group should clarify whether these are standard visible forms that people can also use, or hidden forms added 14:39:30 mainly for agents, because hidden agent-only forms could create noise or clutter in the accessibility tree; for the JavaScript side, he asked whether the capabilities being exposed to agents are also available to everyone else, and whether users of assistive technology would be told that these extra capabilities exist and may require turning on an 14:39:30 agent to access them, especially since people may not want agents enabled all the time for privacy or security reasons. 14:40:39 Matatk said Paul’s questions should probably be added into the draft comment, since they fit with the group’s concerns and may also connect to the broader issue of whether WebMCP is the right approach and whether content should differ for humans versus agents. 14:40:40 q? 14:41:51 Web and AI IG meeting: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/c955602b-2544-4eff-abaf-aab826708831/20260714T160000/ 14:42:33 janina group should try to reach consensus soon because there is a Web and AI meeting next Tuesday that APA and RQTF are invited to, where Matatk plans to walk through key accessibility and AI concerns and share a draft agenda later this week. 14:43:29 Janina clarified that the urgency is because the Web and AI meeting is on Tuesday, so they want to sort out their WebMCP position before then. 14:44:07 Fazio asked whether putting WebMCP information into the accessibility tree might make overlays and similar tools more genuinely useful for accessibility instead of just being superficial widgets. 14:44:08 q+ 14:44:44 Janina replied that agents may still benefit from hints, but the accessibility tree should stay focused on representing the user interface and should not be mixed with internal agent data, because that would blur two different purposes and create too much risk. 14:47:43 Matatk agreed with the idea that agent-driven adaptive interfaces are promising, but said the current WebMCP proposal seems to focus more on higher-level, agent-oriented instructions than on the kind of structured semantic details that would directly support robust accessibility adaptations, so putting it into the accessibility tree would risk 14:47:43 misuse, such as stuffing ARIA with text meant for agents rather than assistive technologies. 14:48:13 Fazio said he would like to see a side-by-side comparison of what WebMCP supporters think agents would gain from using the accessibility tree versus what accessibility people think could be harmed or corrupted by doing that. 14:49:08 zakim, next item 14:49:08 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, janina 14:49:09 Janina said they should not try to work out that full pros-and-cons comparison live in the meeting, but instead do it separately in a parallel structure so the group can think it through more carefully. 14:49:13 kq? 14:49:16 q? 14:49:24 ack ma 14:49:30 zakim, next item 14:49:30 agendum 6 -- [Spec review requests](https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues) -- taken up [from janina] 14:50:36 Matatk said the group is running short on time and may need a small team to triage and do lighter spec reviews so they can work through the backlog, including heavier items like Open UI that still need input. 14:50:46 subtopic: ARIA 1.3 review update 14:50:48 https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues/165 14:52:50 Core part seems to be: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1915 14:53:27 Matatk said the ARIA 1.3 review update is that they got a reply to their earlier questions, the typo issue was confirmed and can be dropped, ARIA Notify will get a better introduction before CR, and the main thing left for the group to assess is whether the rationale for the new section header and section footer roles is strong enough. 14:53:47 regrets: Gottfried_Zimmerman, Jennifer_Strickland, Christian_Perera 14:53:47 Matatk said their earlier feedback on ARIA 1.3 had three parts: first, they had asked why the new section header and section footer roles were needed, especially since they are not landmark roles; second, they had pointed out what looked like a typo in the naming of one of those roles; and third, they had said the spec did not clearly explain when 14:53:47 or why someone should use ARIA Notify instead of other options; he then reported that Daniel Montalvo from the ARIA side replied that the group had linked back to the issue and discussion where the header and footer roles were originally justified, so APA now needs to review that rationale and decide if it is convincing, the typo was confirmed so 14:53:47 that concern can be removed, and Daniel opened an issue to add a better introduction to ARIA Notify before the spec moves to Candidate Recommendation, which Matatk seemed comfortable trusting them to do. 14:53:51 Also PR for sectionheader and sectionfooter: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1931 14:55:27 PaulG said the linked issue is confusing because it starts more broadly, but his reading is that this came from revisiting an older discussion about header and footer roles and then deciding to add new section header and section footer semantics into the accessibility mapping. 14:56:33 PaulG said the current proposal seems to map the new section header and section footer roles as specialized group roles in accessibility APIs, using header or footer as subroles under a general group role. 14:57:03 Matatk said he still does not understand the real use case for these roles and questioned how assistive technology users would benefit if section header and section footer are not landmark roles. 14:58:38 zakim, end meeting 14:58:38 As of this point the attendees have been matatk, janina, marcelo, Fazio, Neha, PaulG, tsaulter, Dr_Keith, chiace, Dylan, JonCohn 14:58:40 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:58:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/08-apa-minutes.html Zakim 14:58:49 I am happy to have been of service, matatk; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 14:58:49 janina has left #apa 14:58:49 Zakim has left #apa 15:03:04 Neha has left #apa 16:05:05 kizu has joined #apa 16:05:06 bkardell has joined #apa 16:32:39 lea has joined #apa