W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > April 2018

Notes from meeting -Re: Agenda: APA WEEKLY Teleconference; Wednesday 4 April at 16:00Z

From: Drake, Ted <Ted_Drake@intuit.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:01:19 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures" <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7B95064C-6137-4D00-9926-FC0EC521C455@intuit.com>
Link to meeting notes: https://www.w3.org/2018/04/04-apa-minutes.html


W3C
- DRAFT -
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference
04 Apr 2018
Attendees
Present
janina_, Joanmarie_Diggs, MichaelC, Becka11y, janina, tdrake, JF
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
tdrake
Contents
Topics
Agenda Overview; Announcements
Captioning Followup
Charter Renewal https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

W3C Spec Template Redesign http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Feb/0064.html

APA Verticals -- Continuing discussion
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
<janina> scribe: tdrake

Agenda Overview; Announcements
janina: no adjustments to agenda or announcements

Captioning Followup
janina: no comments on captioning follow up and they are ready to close.

Do we have an exact phrase to have a consistent name, such as impact statement

accessibility impact statement, or something like that

michael: Accessibility Considerations... I need to look at past examples

janina: That is good. we can use that if there are no objections

hearing nothing, we can move forward.

john: i noticed there were a number of comments from Pierre for APA.

There were 7 comments in John's email. He can forward to Janina.

Charter Renewal https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter

Gottfried: nothing from my side

janina: Charter renewal, no new edits.

michael: I have not made changes in the last week.

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter


I did try to change the "fast" comment

janina: It would be useful for people to take a quick read to see if there are any issues outstanding. If not, we can tighten the language and get on a trajectory to close this and move it up the flagpole by the end of the month

Micheal C: There was a comment from Leonie to make it easier reading. He requested specific edit requests

Joanie: while it is important to address Leonie's concerns for readability. Charters have mission, scope and need to be very well defined. That may conflict with optimal readability.

Janina: statements should be simplified as much as possible, and no more.

John: WCAG suggests a summary at the top of the document.

Joanie: it would be worth asking Leonie about the summary

Michael: there's a rigid format that includes a mission statement at the top. This would need to be adjusted to include a summary.

John: The template may need to be adjusted, but this may not be the time.

joanie: that was Leonie's comment. It's been requested before and nothing has moved forward.

john: As an AC member, there's potential to apply some pressure via AC reps.

Janina: that is where it would need to be addressed.

John: we've talked about common concerns in the AC

<MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html


Michael: There's a charter template.

I would suggest changes could be submitted as pull requests.

janina: any other comments?

gottfried: I think the charter reads well. Do we want the most obligations as possible? Or do we want to limit responsibilities and not over-commit

michael: this charter includes more specific information. We need to include timelines for deliverables and make sure we can meet them. The other deliverable we've been debating is moving personlization from ARIA to APA.

That would be an additional deliverable that is not reflected in the charter.

janina: the re-write of the CAPTCHA notes is moving well.

there will be another round of edits based on recent conversations. It will probably come here before the end of the month.

I expect we will have a working draft before the charter expires.

michael: getting the captcha document published before the charter committee is important to show progress.

We haven't published much in the past 3 years. It's possible the advisory committee will question the need for APA as a working group.

janina: I support this and will commit to helping.

michael: I would like the working group's opinion on adding to req or note track.

john: I wish there was a track between them.

I think note would be easier to accomplish

michael: being a note says it fell off the priority list

john: is one of our goals is being a guidance provider? we were able to sit with another group and use our expertise to guide their normative content. Is that a better encapsulation of our charter?

michael: it's not clear that it has to be normative.

should it remain non-normative.

personalization semantics is still in question. If we remain non-normative, are we a working group or an interest group.

janina: having a deliverable is not why we are looking to move personalization to APA.

We thought this would fit under ARIA, but after working on it for a while the task group is seeing the limitations as an ARIA approach.

michael: personlization is broader than personalization semantics. it may require additional outreach and this fits better under APA

john: +1

janina: any questions or comments about APA taking on personalization?

<JF> More than just OK, actually very happy to see that move

joanie: I am not speaking as aria WG co-chair. But as a SR developer and member of APA, I support APA taking on personalization.

APA may be able to provide a service. There's a lot of deliverables and overhead that APA can handle and allow the experts to manage the personalization development.

Start it in APA and let people focus on what they need to do. Let Janina focus on the administration aspects.

janina: There's a lot of talk on virtual and augmented reality. There will be a return after CAPTCHA completion. AR/VR may be more incorporated in W3C.

john: is the move a solid plan or a question to be explored.

michael: it's more of a concrete proposal. It's not enough to be written as a draft charter

john: is there an action to move forward.

Is there something we can do over the next two weeks to get it into the charter

micheal: we need to judge the support within the APA group. We need to determine support/lack of support first.

john: do we want to do a straw poll on this call?

we could get a consensus on this call to at least voice initial suport.

janina: there are other conversations going on that need to be managed.

<gottfried> +1

+1 ted

<Becka11y> +1

<janina> +1

<JF> +1

<joanie> +1

janina: we have strong support from those present.

michael: while strong polling, should we vote on preferring non-normative specifications?

janina: it would be a stronger document if it was normative.

michael: i would be happy to wait for people to think about it.

implementation of this document would be a specification.

If I am a spec developer... if the security group came up with a checklist of specifications... as a member of ARIA, I would find it awkward to complete the checklist

janina: i think it would be reasonable to ask for a completed checklist

It's an important goal for us to make this requirement.

michael: I don't support a checklist as a requirement item.

<janina> +1

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/products/8

<MichaelC> close action-2167

<trackbot> Closed action-2167.

<MichaelC> close action-2162

<trackbot> Closed action-2162.

John: we can close vtt due to other conditions

michael: Ian has CSS actions.

Ted: DOM changes looked good, but I haven't completed. I think we could close it.

<MichaelC> close action-2123

<trackbot> Closed action-2123.

john: i would support that.

Michael: Becky to review shadow dom

Becky: I'm still learning shadow DOM before I can make recommendations.

michael: Shadow DOM is part of a swirl going on with DOM.

SVG2 is in candidate recommendation. There's a ping action on it.

We discussed this back in November. I feel this action is meaningless, but I'm not sure.

We wanted to see if they re-raised it after re-chartering. Let's see if the action is updated down the road.

Becky: they are trying to incorporate the shadow DOM.

new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html

michael: there appears to be 0 new publications.

W3C Spec Template Redesign http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Feb/0064.html

janina: a reminder to weigh in if we have anything to say.

APA Verticals -- Continuing discussion
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Verticals_to_Track


janina: we succesfully identified lead people for each vertical

it would be helpful to have 3-5 sentences describing each vertical's interest

Ted, that would be for web payments.

ted: that works for me.

janina: john, you may be identified for media

becky: this is just explaining what the vertical is

janina: and what the accessibility interest is for the vertical

do we want to add it to the wiki?

michael: sure, if that is the easiest.

or send draft message.

it could be done by email. but putting it in the wiki would put it into a single location. The description could be part of a bullet item

john: i'm struggling to visualize the prose. It would be good if there were a sample.

janina: in media, we would be looking to refine the MAUR for the experience and to develop support for tooling and sample content. for those authoring and using agent tools.

michael: I updated the vertical to illustrate the requirements: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Verticals_to_Track


janina: Any other items?

Ted: Is anyone else going to Web4All?

It looks like nobody else on call is attending Web4All this year.

Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
 

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2018 17:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 April 2018 17:02:17 UTC