- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:30:51 -0400
- To: W3C WAI ARIA <public-aria@w3.org>
Minutes from the ARIA teleconference of 1 September are provided below as
text, and are available as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2016/09/01-aria-minutes.html
W3C
- DRAFT -
Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
01 Sep 2016
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, LJWatson, jaeunku, jongund, cyns
Regrets
Chair
Rich
Scribe
Janina
Contents
* Topics
1. Publishing HTML AAM
2. name from author --action 1723
3. blockers for entering cr
4. testable statements
5. tapc coordination
* Summary of Action Items
* Summary of Resolutions
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
<Rich> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0259.html
<Rich> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Sep/att-0000/00-part
<Rich> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0259.html
<scribe> scribe: Janina
Publishing HTML AAM
rs: Expected last week we would have a CfC handing this to Web Platforms
... However, there were concerns, mainly about resources over time
<Rich> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Sep/att-0000/00-part
rs: Web Platforms is now saying they want ARIA to own it alone, if it can't be exclusively Web Platform's
... We also had informal advice of an FO if kept joint
... This started to sound like some level of mistrust
... Don't believe that's a general feeling
... Also, noting comments on WAICC sharing the resourcing concern over time
... Meanwhile, the contributors have said we'll continue working whoever owns it
... Leonie has agreed to a one month review before major transition, i.e. CR
lw: Yes. We'd be looking to sync with HTML transitions
rs: Seems it needs to be one group or the other
mc: Don't understand why joint isn't acceptable
... It provides process protections to both groups,
... Influencing consistancy is important to ARIA, imo
... I have gone out of my way to absorb publication process from wp
rs: If they give us a 2 month review, why is that an issue?
mc: That helps in reviewing content
... Well, we also have structure and tooling involved
lw: We're not saying we don't want to work with ARIA
... We have one member saying no joint deliverables, but not ARIA specific
... Chairs concerned that objections need to be dealt with in two different places when they arise, and that complicates things
... We've different tooling, i.e. github; this group email
... Happy to work out good coordination, just not want official process in two different places
... WP also has many a11y people, well represented
cs: Microsoft is generally in favor of single point of ownership and accountability.
... I plan to work on this doc regardless of where it lives
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say many of the šhave to coordinate on xyzš are features not bugs and to say I am not aware of process burdens having been a problem
for HTML-AAM and to
mc: Most of the points on accountability and process are actually features, imo, not bugs
... I'm simply not aware that there have been any process problems to date
... I believe we can minimize issues in two places, other kinds of duplicative process concerns
lw: Believe only one CfC so far, for fpwd
... believe mappings had 3 cfcs via HTML-A11y TF, PF, and HTML -- but mostly the same people
... ARIA in HTML is already sole ownership of WP
mc: Believe that's a different niche
... The AAM mappings are different, part of a suite of AAMs that involve multiple groups
mk: Wondering whether issues of joint ownership could be solved by single repo, single process/issues, logging, etc
rs: To me one of the big problems is serialized signoffs
<cyns> +1 to Rich
mc: No reason not to do it in parallel
... But however we structure it, we're still looking for sign off from both groups
lw: Wondering what input is at risk if it's input via wide review? Rather than ownership?
mc: 1.) structurally can't insure it fits the larger suite of aams, divergence over time
... 2.) insure that it gets completed
... Not saying this will happen, but such things do happen. We wouldn't be able to pick up the work should that happen
lw: Should we amend our Charter to clarify this? Would that do it?
mc: We coordinate via aria eeditors, we don't have a single doc that lays it out
... common toc, certain items the doc covers, relationship to host docs, some tooling that facilitates all this
... Don't believe the editors attend coord calls
... No, but they follow the list and respond
... They do use the tools, and they pose questions to the other editors
... They do avail themselves of this infrastructure
<mck> /me Yay, got on to chatzilla ... now will JAWS read this back to me?
rs: It doesn't sound like web platforms won't accept joint ownership
mc; We're being told one member won't accept, that shouldn't speak for the entire w3c that way.
mc: It's a precedent for other groups as well
lw: Notes that this is a very active discussion, not just aria, currently
rs: Expect we should put out two proposals and decide between them
... if WP takes ownership, what are the stiuplations?
mk: seems, aria owns, wp owns, and joint -- is any one of these actually going to clearly achieve consensus
rs: Note this has been discussed on several calls, in several contexts
... reminds me of role=text
mk: wonder if laying out the options, then discussing at tpac might be helpful
lw: Noting this the one thing holding us back from advancing our Charter
rs: So, if WP owns, what are the stipulations? 2 month review?
jn: 1 month should be enough. More, and people would just delay
mk: what transition?
rs: major milesont, specifically cr
... so 1 month, cr, major pub
... make that cr and pr
... Second stipulation, github? a common github for all aams?
mk: we're looking at this anyway, i think
... Noting we had some informal agreements, like feature freeze ahead of cr.
rs: like unofficial last call? since no more official last call?
lw: so the cfc proposing cr is the lc now
mc: we just did a pseudo lc, which is recommended by process and many groups that review
... even though not mandating, mor and more groups are adopting that
rs: would wp agree to feature complete ahead of cr?
lw: probably not
rs: so objections on cr, just return to cr
mk: how do nonmembers participate while aam changes are ongoing prior to cr?
lw: filing issues on github
mk: input from the outside wouldn't be possible unless one were involved and aware
lw: it would be easy to keep this call informed
mk: aria cfc's are public
lw: same for us
mc: PF was the only nonpublic, and migrated some years ago -- of the a11y groups
rs: 2nd option is aria ownership. any stipulations?
mc: would want the same review reqs on us
lw: month's review would be ok
rs: if joint -- we need to paralelize the process, imo
mc: we rs: so both groups have to sign off? so two cfc's?
rs: so if one agrees and the other doesn't?
mc: but that's exactly what we need to resolve, regardless of whether single or joint
lw: but that divides the discussion
mc: I think we would move to a joint discussion to resolve
rs: so if joint, would need to resolve disagreements in joint discussion
janina: suggesting best as wbs
mc: soonest late today, probably tomorrow
rs: OK, just don't want to hold up charters. we know how that's problematic!
name from author --action 1723
action-1723?
<trackbot> action-1723 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Editorial - create sections listing the roles that provide (1) nameFrom:author and (2) nameFrom:contents -- due
2016-08-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1723
jd: nothing changed
... needs to know what clown needs
rs: ok
blockers for entering cr
rs: need error message, details mapping, a few others resolved
... people have been away
... nvda wanted to concatinate -- didn't think it was appropriate
... had issues from matt
cyns: will take a pass, but there are some we don't have mapped
... do i have an action?
<Rich> ACTION: Cynthia provide UIA mappings for new ARIA construct gaps (rich to provide) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/01-aria-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2113 - Provide uia mappings for new aria construct gaps (rich to provide) [on Cynthia Shelly - due 2016-09-08].
rs: need to go through the several platforms, probably apple last
testable statements
rs: had good discussion on automated
cyns: fred has provided testable statements with great detail that are convertible to json
... he has scripts for that
... microsoft has tooling to test
... we import the json
... I need to add some of the uia -- but it's all moving along, even with some staffing changes here
... we need people to create test cases based on the statements
... believe JF's India people working on that, but more people would be helpful
... Also jg has student o work on ia2 connector for the automated testing
rs: msaa and ia2 will need to be done together,otherwise not automatable
<Rich> https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_1.1_Testable_Statements
rs: anyone spoken to jcraig about osx?
[crickets]
rs: OK, I'll reach out
cyns: jg has a student for ia2, maybe could get another?
jg: Yes, first priority is msaa/ia2, which is the priority
... but if they complete that, could work on os10
... believe overall theme here is to create a generalized test suite for all of aria
... would be nice to have someone else on os10
cyns: suggest that it's a good intern project
jg: can i just reach out? or need to do all the w3c structure?
mc: use judgement.
rs: I am finding some isues, formatting, and results
<Rich> https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_1.1_Testable_Statements#aria-busy_on_a_listbox_Rich_Start
rs: for global tests, i suggest 3, representable list should suffice
... I have several sections on me, i will do a few, then will discuss on how to hand some of this over
jg: should we discuss next wednesday?
rs: we need jf for that
... we're not in cr yet because mainly we should get some of the mapping done and convince ourselves nothing is at risk
tapc coordination
<Rich> ARIA Working Group Meetings: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
<Rich> - APA Working Group Meetings: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
<Zakim> fesch, you wanted to say I have uploaded the perl script to convert wiki to JSON
<Rich> - Web Component ARIA Issue: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/552
<Rich> - Web Component and Extensibility Issue: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/553
rs: when can we meet with web components
lw: need to speak with chaals
rs: hasn't been responding to email
lw: will try and chase him down
rs: any other points?
mc: no
jn: is agenda finalized? can times still be moved?
... ok if not involving another wg
... have conflict with AC 3PM
rs: had to move for jcraig
jn: could it be earlier in the day?
... perhaps the 11am slot?
lw: progress, the ab meeting no longer at the same time!
rs: I'll send a note
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Cynthia provide UIA mappings for new ARIA construct gaps (rich to provide) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/01-aria-minutes.html#action01]
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Found Scribe: Janina
Present: Janina Joanmarie_Diggs LJWatson jaeunku jongund cyns
People with action items: cynthia
--
Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
Email: janina@rednote.net
Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 17:31:14 UTC