Re: Agenda: APA WEEKLY Teleconference; Wednesday 18 January at 1500Z

Hi all,

Please find the minutes for today at https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-apa-minutes.html and below in plain text form for convenience.

Best regards,


Matthew

                             – DRAFT –
     Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Weekly Teleconference

18 jan 2023

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-apa-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Fredrik, Gottfried, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk,
          niklasegger, PaulG, Roy

   Regrets
          Gottfried, Nadine

   Chair
          Janina

   Scribe
          Fredrik, matatk

Contents

    1. [3]Agenda Review & Announcements
    2. [4]CfC Elevating Maturity Model to Task Force httpS://
       www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/maturity-model/
       work-statementtatus
    3. [5]APA Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/

       charter-2023/charter.html
    4. [6]Payments Security IG Rechartering https://github.com/

       w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981
    5. [7]APA Rechartering https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/

       charter-2023/charter.html
    6. [8]Payments Security IG Rechartering https://github.com/

       w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981
    7. [9]PROPOSED Private Advertising Technology Working Group
       https://www.w3.org/2022/08/PROPOSED-PATWG-charter.html

    8. [10]Review Requests https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/

       issues
    9. [11]CSS Update (Paul) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/

       issues

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Announcements

  CfC Elevating Maturity Model to Task Force [12]httpS://www.w3.org/WAI/

  APA/task-forces/maturity-model/work-statementtatus

     [12] https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/maturity-model/work-statementtatus


   <janina> [13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/

   2023Jan/0015.html

     [13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html


   janina: The above is an email from one of the co-facilitators,
   explaining why W3C is doing this work. Does this allay your
   concerns?

   <janina> [14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/

   2023Jan/0015.html

     [14] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html


   Lionel_Wolberger: I'm involved in this work. I support the
   proposed CfC.

   <janina> [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/

   2023Jan/0015.html

     [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html


   janina: Asking differently: anyone opposed to the CfC?

   Fredrik: I'd like the CfC.

   matatk: I wasn't clear on point 7 in the email; is there
   another example? (Not opposed to CfC.)

   <PaulG> +1

   <PaulG> (support removal of #7)

   Fredrik: Maybe best to leave that point out (seems confused,
   and technologies change rapidly anyway).

   janina: We should ask the MM group to clarify or drop that one.

   janina: Others OK with that approach?

   +1 (others already +1'd)

  APA Rechartering [16]https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/

  charter.html

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/charter.html


   janina: Nothing changed since last week; still seeking comments
   and questions.

  Payments Security IG Rechartering [17]https://github.com/w3c/strategy/

  issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981


  APA Rechartering [18]https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/

  charter.html

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/apa/blob/charter-2023/charter.html


   Here's the pretty link: [19]https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/

   charter-2023/charter.html

     [19] https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2023/charter.html


  Payments Security IG Rechartering [20]https://github.com/w3c/strategy/

  issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/365#issuecomment-1379515981


   janina: Lionel_Wolberger had a look at this, and raised some
   issues about UI, and what was included.
   … We were invited by WPSIG leadership to join their management
   call, which matatk and I did yesterday.
   … It was an aha! moment, as they're fully supportive of
   accessibility, but are currently working on lower-level things.
   There are some things coming up that may need our input, and
   they're happy to liaise with us then.
   … They are not working on the same things (e.g. wallet UIs) as
   Verifiable Credentials. The focus is narrower, specifically on
   payments.
   … The VC work is less tied to browsers.
   … We laid out what we're looking for in the short-term future,
   and longer-term aspirations (as per last TPAC).
   … Their focus remains on registration-free secure payments,
   though there was no objection to our work/aims. There was FIDO
   representation there, and they're looking into what process may
   be used to liaise with us (membership and IP considerations
   ongoing).
   … We expect to hear back from them, as there was the desire to
   work jointly.

   janina: Any considerations/concerns (specifically related to
   the charter)?

   janina: They said let's get together at TPAC, which reminds
   me...
   … TPAC will be the 11th to 15th of September, in Seville :-).

   janina: Lionel_Wolberger: does this allay any concerns?

   Lionel_Wolberger: sounds great; let's make the meetings happen.

  PROPOSED Private Advertising Technology Working Group [21]https://
  www.w3.org/2022/08/PROPOSED-PATWG-charter.html

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2022/08/PROPOSED-PATWG-charter.html


   janina: New group being proposed to find a way to allow the
   advertisting industry to add adverts to web content, and
   collect data from the user without disclosing who they are
   (and, one assumes, without disclosing they have a disability -
   though that is not explicitly stated).
   … We signed off on this group back last May, but I now have
   some additional concerns, partly due to the work we did in
   Adapt. IIRC we signed off with a caveat, but not sure if that
   has been reflected in the draft charter.
   … I also have concerns about how we preserve people's
   anonymity, or the masking of their disability, or their ability
   to read the ads (COGA implications; maybe distracting).
   … Some users with disabilities may want to read the ads, but
   need an accessible way to do so.
   … My list of things that I'd add, if we were looking at this
   with perhaps a little more forethought than we did last May,
   … would include demarcating where the ad starts and ends. Also,
   adding an ad into a page should not do anything to break its
   accessibility.
   … Do you share these concerns?

   Lionel_Wolberger: Sites tend to offer slots in which to place
   ads, so the chance of an ad changing the page outside of itself
   is unlikely.
   … The tendency for ads to slide in/out seems to have stopped.
   … However there is something powerful in what you said, which
   is that given a page has a certain level of accessibility, we
   don't wnat an ad to come in and lower the accessibility.

   Lionel_Wolberger: I think this is a concern we could raise
   fruitfully.

   janina: Could this include a keyboard trap?

   Lionel_Wolberger: Actually yes, on reflection, though ads don't
   tend to have a lot of keyboard interactivity.
   … Today the bane of the web is autoplaying video.

   PaulG: Reminds me of the Reporting API conversation at TPAC. I
   think this'd be a fantastic use case becuase the brokering is
   on-demand. People who have a UA/plugin that reports
   accessibility issues within ads, that ad could get downgraded
   within the brokering conglomerate. You could have an agreement
   with them that you (as a site provider)

   <Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to Paul's idea of Reporting API could
   report back to the RTB ad-provisioning system

   PaulG: only want ads that meet a certain level of
   accessibility. Some consideration would be needed wrt
   anti-competitive behavior, but this could empower users
   (especially e.g. with distracting content).

   <Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to "Accessibility Reporting API"

   +1 to Paul's ideas!

   niklasegger: +1 to all of the above. Just to add something
   about videos: it is theoretical possible that the video
   displays some flickering content, which is a huge risk to some
   people.

   janina: Another excellent point.

   +1

   janina: When we signed off, they went to AC vote, which failed.
   They're trying again.

   janina: Seems like there are still some votes against the new
   charter. We need people who can vote, i.e. AC reps, to make a
   formal objection.

   janina: I think there are several here who are formal members.

   janina: We can then work with this group to close them.

   matatk: Privacy concerns: Are we more concerned if people are
   for instance using the ADAPT plugin?

   janina: We brought it up perhaps in May last year. I'll find it
   and post it to list.

   <matatk> matatk: +1 again to PaulG's ideas; it's a really
   positive way to approach ads.

   <matatk> janina: Ads can be fun, and we should have access to
   them.

   <matatk> janina: Are the bounding boxes for ads semantically
   identifiable? Yes?

   <matatk> PaulG: They should be marked with a landmark or
   something.

   <matatk> matatk: Something about marking content, and privacy:
   need user to be able to opt out of some types of content, for
   health reasons, without giving away PII.

   <matatk> janina: The vote is open to February 10. When I find
   our previous comment, I'll post that to the list, along with
   this date.

   <matatk> ... Please reach out to your AC rep to express these
   accessibility concerns.

   <matatk> matatk: Suggest we work on a comment to give to AC
   reps about this.

   <matatk> janina: +1; please comment on list

   <matatk> Fredrik: +1

   <matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: There can be malware in advertising,
   with commercial solutions having been devised. This proposed
   approach is similar to that. We do have a tall hill to climb.

   <matatk> ... There was an article about prior efforts in this
   area.

   <Lionel_Wolberger> FYI [22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

   Evil_bit HT matatk

     [22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit


  Review Requests [23]https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues


     [23] https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues


   <matatk> janina: This will become a stock agenda item. It is
   not the dashboard, but it's like the dashboard.

   <matatk> janina: Whe groups ask for an APA review, that starts
   the clock ticking. These requests are formal (and we also
   receive via email) and we only have 30 days to respond.

   <matatk> janina: The latest one: [24]https://github.com/w3c/

   a11y-request/issues/50

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues/50


   <matatk> ... Secure Payment Confirmation 2023-01-11 >
   2023-02-01

   <matatk> PaulG: They have an accessibility considerations
   section.

  CSS Update (Paul) [25]https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues


     [25] https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues


   <matatk> PaulG: I reviewed Web Locks; it's very low-level; fine
   to pass on it.

-- 
Matthew Tylee Atkinson (he/him) 
-- 
Principal Accessibility Engineer 
TPG Interactive 
https://www.tpgi.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, 18 January 2023 16:05:14 UTC