Minutes for 16 December

Minutes from the APA teleconference of 16 December are provided below as text.
They're available as hypertext at:

https://www.w3.org/2020/12/16-apa-minutes.html


   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                 Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2020

Attendees

   Present
          janina, JPaton, JF, becky, IrfanA, Matthew_Atkinson, paul_grenier, NeilS

   Regrets
          Gottfried, Ela

   Chair
          Janina

   Scribe
          becky, janina

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda Review & Announcements
         2. Task Force Updates
         3. Proposing a required Accessibility Considerations template
         4. APA Rechartering https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html
         5. FAST Progress
         6. New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
         7. new on TR http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-drafts.html
         8. CSS Update (Amy) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
         9. Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
        10. Horizontal Review Issues Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
        11. Web Payments & Commerce CG
        12. New Minutes Templates
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <janina> Date: 16 Dec 2020

   <becky> scribe: becky

Agenda Review & Announcements

   JS: stock agenda with a few addn. items added to agenda
   ... this is last meeting of the year, hearing no announcements

Task Force Updates

   JS: pronunciation had a great meeting with the publishing group; they will provide examples of items that do not pronounce well
   ... suggest that personalization may also want to meet with publishing in the future
   ... work is happening in our task forces

   Irfan: agree it was a very productive meeting for pronunciation

   JS: found we have common interest in proper/good pronunciation, not just screen readers but impacts other areas as well
   ... will follow up with them in January, nothing specific scheduled, yet
   ... Neil's name got brought up when pub. group asked for math examples

Proposing a required Accessibility Considerations template

   JS: discussed in apa leadership call; would like JF to create a first draft for what goes in the standard A11y considerations
   ... want the a11y section to be enforced by respec. Need a template that a user can follow, go through step by step and throw away parts that don't apply;

   JF: does make sense to have a template that starts off with a set of questions

   JS: this is the intent of FAST; some groups are using and giving feedback. We are thinking of having cut and paste statements that can be part of the A11y section template.

   JF: if longer term goal is that FAST generates a11y statement it makes more sense to get that completed rather than a collection of statements. seems to be ultimately doing the same thing

   JS: FAST approach will take longer; would be good to get the a11y statement requirement started

   Amy: I was thinking about something like this when reviewing specs; I see sections for privacy concerns in the appendix, shouldn't there by an a11y section?

   JS: this is what JF recommended

   JF: I'm happy to work on something but I feel like it needs to be coordinated with FAST

   MC: I see FAST and the a11y statement both being important; FAST will help people understand and generate; but we want to make sure that the a11y section gets included and enforced
   ... want an expectation that the a11y section should be in the document by default, groups have to make a decision to remove rather than to include (opt out vs opt in)
   ... will be putting dedicated time with Josh into FAST in the new year.

   JS: the complementary nature of FAST and a11y statement is important

   JF: willing to work with Josh to understand FAST better; and will take a look at FAST and report back in January

   <scribe> ACTION: JF to review FAST and report back in January

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2275 - Review fast and report back in january [on John Foliot - due 2020-12-23].

   MA: want to +1 making a11y section a requirement

   PG: maybe this can read like a disclaimer, "This document as been review for accessibility...." and perhaps include a link to APA github to file an issue

   JS: that is sort of what FAST is supposed to do

   PG: language in the published document would have a link to apa github so people reading the document can file an issue

   JS: a11y statement would have a link to APA github to file an issue

   BG: some confusion about issue going to apa

   JF: concerned about how to actually get all of the information we need in the github issue

   MC: there is some tooling being developed to help with that

   JF: I would think the issue would be filed with the working group and tagged with APA at the time of creating the statement

   MC: tooling already exists for what JF described

   NS: is idea that the final document would have the link to file an issue?

   JS: yes

APA Rechartering https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html

   JS: our TF with normative deliverables are working on that, also need to document the non-normative ones; still need to start addressing within RQTF
   ... we don't expect COGA to be part of new charter; if they want to continue as part of APA then COGA needs to send representative to participate in APA meetings
   ... everyone in APA needs to review the scope; we will be focusing on this in January and will issues a CFC before forwarding to mgmt.

FAST Progress

   JS: MC reported on this earlier; he and Josh will be working on this; FAST has 2 parts - how to write accessibility into your spec and a tool with a set of questions to help a WG determine if there are a11y concerns.
   We will help them to resolve the ones that come up.

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

   MC: no new charters this week

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

   MC: nothing that we haven't already looked at

CSS Update (Amy) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues

   <amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-highlight-api-1/

   AC: looked at CSS custom highlight api module level 1. This is just an extension of customizing the highlight pseudo element;

   JS: asked for an heard no objections to signing off on this spec
   ... asks how we sign off

   MC: if spec is in our tracker, we close the item and it allows the doc. to proceed with TR
   ... if it is just an issue, we need to indicate the we have reviewed with a short statement

   PG: but can't developers cause problems with implementation even if spec seems okay?

   MC: yes, would be good to have a general accessibility statement about some of the CSS levels that people can link to
   ... in the spec.

   JS: this would go in the accessibility considerations section

   AC: so we can sign off on the spec but include a11y considerations for implementors

   <amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-conditional-3/

   AC: also looked at CSS conditional rules module level 3: This is a CR snapshot

   MC: snapshot indicates that this is a stable enough version for implementors to use but may be some interoperability issues

   <amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-conditional-4/

   AC: I didn't see any issues in this module; The level 4 version is still being worked on - not much to look on; targeting extensiats to the @ rule

   JS: perhaps look at this again in 6 - 12 months

   PG: suggests asking what the timeline is for level 4

   MC: CSS member is generally good at noticing when things need to be brought to our attention

   AC: so need to sign off on level 3; level 4 we should revisit

   <amy_c> https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues/31

   MC: will include that on our wiki page

   <amy_c> https://www.w3.org/TR/geometry-1/

   AC: review geometry interfaces level 1 - this is from dec. 2018; do we still need to review?
   ... it is at CR since 2018; is there any reason to keep this open?

   JS: yes is late but probably not too late if there is a serious issue

   AC: Editor's draft was last updated in March, 2020

   NS: not finding anything a11y related with a quick review
   ... is low level

   JS: don't see any issues signing off; thanks to Amy

Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open

   JS: I have worked on some; contacted John Rochford about one today; looked at 2226 and didn't find anything - it was only about card processing;
   ... 2264 - just a WD from i18n for specifying locales and languages; probably important for all of our TF; there is follow up work there

   PG: I had submitted to the list

   JS: yes, need to contextualize the comments - refer to the actual spec. in the response with links. Then can issue a CFC
   ... in January

Horizontal Review Issues Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review

   <MichaelC> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/6218

   MC: Consider specifying heuristics for when <ul> represents a list; comments by a11y knowledgable folks

   JS: we should track

Web Payments & Commerce CG

   MC: Ian Jabobs sent a message to the CG that because of no action it is going to be closed
   ... there is a Web payments WG
   ... we wanted to work on an a11y statement as part of the community group; Are we okay with the CG being closed?
   ... hearing no objections to closing

New Minutes Templates

   <MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/scribe2/master/sample-public.html

   MC: generator will create a new format of minutes; this will be used in January unless we opt out
   ... some other groups are opting out because unsure of a11y issues; a11y issues don't seem much difference than current format
   ... will be automatically switched to new format in January unless we opt out

   JF: has there been a formal review?

   MC: no, we did a quick review at apa plan - some issues with color

   JF: two icons with no visible text icons - the clock goes to the agenda, not the time; there is a requirement for visible label

   JS: sounds like we are opting out until they fix a few things

   <paul_grenier> I also need to drop.

   JF: I do like the way it is laid out

   discussion of the new layout

   <janina> scribe: janina

   <scribe> ACTION: JF to review new minutes template for accessibility issues due 20210113

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-2276 - Review new minutes template for accessibility issues due 20210113 [on John Foliot - due 2020-12-23].

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: JF to review FAST and report back in January
   [NEW] ACTION: JF to review new minutes template for accessibility issues due 20210113

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present: janina JPaton JF becky IrfanA Matthew_Atkinson paul_grenier NeilS
Regrets: Gottfried Ela
Scribes: becky, janina
Found Date: 16 Dec 2020
People with action items: jf



-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2020 18:13:26 UTC