W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > October 2019

Minutes: APA WEEKLY Teleconference; Wednesday 16 October at 1600Z

From: Matthew Tylee Atkinson <matkinson@paciellogroup.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:03:58 +0100
To: W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E02A985-EFF6-4040-B2DA-46A8DBC071F1@paciellogroup.com>
Hi all,

Please find the minutes online [1] and below in text form.

best regards,


Matthew

[1] <https://www.w3.org/2019/10/16-apa-minutes.html>

  - DRAFT -


  Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference


    16 Oct 2019


    Attendees

Present
    Irfan, janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, Avneesh, Matthew_Atkinson, Becka11y,
    (no, audio, yet), Gottfried, jasonjgw
Regrets
Chair
    janina
Scribe
    Matthew_Atkinson


    Contents

  * Topics <#agenda>
     1. Agenda Review & Announcements <#item01>
     2. Dpub Audiobook Comments <#item02>
     3. Task Force Updates <#item03>
     4. Horizontal reviews
        https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
        <#item04>
     5. new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html <#item05>
  * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
  * Summary of Resolutions <#ResolutionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Irfan> 0..

<scribe> scribe: Matthew_Atkinson


      Agenda Review & Announcements


      Dpub Audiobook Comments

Janina: some tweets came in regarding the spec; most have been dealt
with; one question remains.

Jason: Initial language was recommending use of a synchronisation spec,
but this is apparently not on a recommendation track, so is
non-normative and could cause interoperability issues to arise should it
change. Should the spec be on a recommendations track?
... other issues introduced (editorial) have been addressed.

Marisa: currently it's a non-normative reference in a non-normative section.

Jason: concern about the language around the reference, given the state
of development of the synchronisation spec. Would be good to have a
working draft perhaps?

Janina: (quotes the language) the language says the use of the
synchronisation spec is recommended (though this is in a non-normative
section). What is the intent with the synchronisation document - is it
intended to become a standard?

Marisa: Unsure, depends on the level of interest and participation in
the community group.
... Lots of good work going on in the community group. Timelines are a
factor.

Avneesh: (ACKs the timing issues)
... Text equivalent to audio. One is to provide the text in the HTML and
point to it. Another is to provide use synch media. Perhaps an approach
would be to recommend the HTML approach first, and the synch media
approach after that?

Janina: The idea of the spec sounds good. A potential challenge is that
it may've changed significantly in a few years' time. Proposes Janina
and Jason draft some language to provide this context for the pointer to
the synch media spec.

Jason: (agrees - would like to help progress this)

Avneesh and Marisa: (agree that sounds good)


      Task Force Updates

<Avneesh> Heading to bed. Thank you

Irfan: FPWD has been published; working on FWD timeline. Starting
technical approach document soon (working out the timeline currently).
The Explainer document has been shared too.

<Irfan> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/pronunciation.html
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/pronunciation.html>

Janina: Michael suggested this may have an impact on 3.1.6 (link
directly above).

Irfan: Timelines are being worked out at the moment.

Michael: WCAG is not dependant on Pronounciation (as it is on
Personalization). (Janina ACKs)

Irfan: idea is to get something ready before July 2020 which is when the
CR of WCAG 2.2 is expected.

Janina: Goal for Pronounciation spec is to have something a good way
along a standards track to ensure that it makes sense to be able to
reference it from WCAG. Lots of preparatory work already done, e.g. with
the Explainer and so on already published.
... CfC out relating to work that came mostly out of RQTF: review of the
WebRTC spec: the need to support real-time text. Some of the reasons for
this are explained in their addendum and they've worked on a first draft
of that language.
... we should check that language (hence the CfC).

Jason: Very thoughtful discussion of this has been ongoing. Valuable to
review, as ever. Josh has been working on a document regarding real-time
communication and RQTF is looking to propose to APA that that be
developed as a working draft. Opportunities to review that should emerge
within the next several weeks, or so.

Josh: (ACKs)
... Great to see the energy in this area; exciting subject. (*general
agreement*)


      Horizontal reviews
      https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
      <https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22>

Michael: Second Screen WG is re-chartering; we've previously reviewed
their spec.

Janina: we noted that a second screen may not be a screen.

<MichaelC> Open Screen Protocol
<https://webscreens.github.io/openscreenprotocol/>

Michael: Added a comment that we are OK with it. Since then, the notion
of Open Screen Protocol (link directly above) was added.

Abstract of Open Screen Protocol is: "The Open Screen Protocol is a
suite of network protocols that allow user agents to implement the
Presentation API and the Remote Playback API in an interoperable fashion."

Michael: *Understands it to be a means to support cross-device casting,
for example.* This appears to be lower-level than we would be concerned
about.

Jason: would accessible retrieval and control of paramaters like
volume/brightness be covered here?

Michael: Think it's focusing on the media stream - issues regarding
accessibility of things like control would come up during spec review
[this is a charter review].

Josh: notion of second screen not being a screen - how does this relate
to hand-shaking?

Michael: Seems like this spec would make this sort of thing easier;
suggest no comments from APA at this time.

(general agreement)


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

Michael: WebXR Gamepads module Level 1

<MichaelC> WebXR Gamepads Module - Level 1
<https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr-gamepads-module-1/>

Michael: We've reviewed WebXR Device API, also Gamepad API. Should we
review this too?

Janina: Sense is that if we review this, it's to ensure it's as complete
as we'd like it to be (e.g. if any device considerations are missing)?
... Good to comment as early as possible.

<MichaelC> *ACTION:* Joshue to review WebXR Gamepads Module - Level 1

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2215 - Review webxr gamepads module - level 1
[on Joshue O Connor - due 2019-10-23].

<MichaelC> action-2215: https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr-gamepads-module-1/

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2215 Review webxr gamepads module -
level 1.

Josh: +1, we should review, also relates to the previous doc (WebXR
Standards and Accessibility issues)

Matthew: (I agree)

<MichaelC> *ACTION:* atkinson to review WebXR Gamepads Module - Level 1

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2216 - Review webxr gamepads module - level 1
[on Matthew Atkinson - due 2019-10-23].

<MichaelC> action-2216: https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr-gamepads-module-1/

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2216 Review webxr gamepads module -
level 1.

<MichaelC> action-2215:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WebXR_Gamepads_Module_-_Level_1
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WebXR_Gamepads_Module_-_Level_1>

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2215 Review webxr gamepads module -
level 1.

<MichaelC> action-2216:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WebXR_Gamepads_Module_-_Level_1
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WebXR_Gamepads_Module_-_Level_1>

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2216 Review webxr gamepads module -
level 1.

<MichaelC> CSS Containment Module Level 2
<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-contain-2/>

Janina: Could this be used for things like collapsing the navbar or
other areas that the user may wish to collapse/expand (seems to relate
to COGA and Personalization). Time to loop in Ian Pouncey again?

Michael: Becky: [wondering what our review should focus on]

Becky: [gives examples of possible interactions with screen-magnification]

Michael: concerned there may be the possibility of inadvertently
introducing WCAG violations in some cases.

<MichaelC> *ACTION:* cooper to review CSS Containment Module Level 2

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2217 - Review css containment module level 2
[on Michael Cooper - due 2019-10-23].

<MichaelC> action-2217:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/CSS_Containment_Module_Level_2
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/CSS_Containment_Module_Level_2>

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2217 Review css containment module level 2.

<MichaelC> action-2217: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-contain-2/

<trackbot> Notes added to action-2217 Review css containment module level 2.

<MichaelC> CSS Images Module Level 3 <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-images-3/>

Michael: Deferring the level 3 to level 4.


    Summary of Action Items

*[NEW]* *ACTION:* atkinson to review WebXR Gamepads Module - Level 1
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* cooper to review CSS Containment Module Level 2
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* Joshue to review WebXR Gamepads Module - Level 1
 


    Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

-- 
Matthew Tylee Atkinson
--
Senior Accessibility Engineer
The Paciello Group
https://www.paciellogroup.com
A Vispero Company
https://www.vispero.com/
--
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately.
Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 17:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:06 UTC