W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > July 2017

[a11y] Minutes for Accessibility TF call, on July 20, 2017

From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:56:00 +0530
Message-ID: <6984DF95A08C4C5E9435F76F6FB87247@AvneeshHP840>
To: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Dear Accessibility Task Force.

Following are the minutes for the conference call held on July 20, 2017, at 16 UTC.

I have cleaned them in this copy, and the link to original unclean minutes are also provided at the end of email.

Presenttzviya, mattg, Avneesh, laudrain, rdeltour, clapierre, George, Bill_Kasdorf, Romain, Mia, Jason.



•Summary of Action Items

•Summary of Resolutions

<laudrain> scribenick: laudrain

Avneesh: 4 topics, equal time

 ... 1. Update on WCAG

 ... background

WCAG 2.1 is incremental release. The vision is to get all the accessibility requirements of publishing in WCAG, but it may be possible in silver. In WCAG 2.1 we are trying to get as many things inside as possible, these may not be in the structure that we want, but it is for starting the process.

The biggest thing is accessibility metadata. It would go into conformance section or AAA of WCAG 2.1. In publishing world it is a high priority item but WCAG 2.1 structure does not allow deeper acceptance.

Then is logical reading order. Section 1.3.2 of WCAG address it in a way. Matt will be proposing some change in language.

then multiple ways of navigation (section 2.4). It is for publishing requirement of page numbers. We will be proposing technique to WCAG.

Then we have other gaps that were identified by DPUB IG note, it includes issues like: deeply nested heading, skippability, escapability and pronunciation lexicons etc..

Some of these needs more work for example what does escapability and skippability mean for text only publications and what it means for audio sync text publications.

George: we know what we can have in 2.1, and then continue in siliver.

Tzviya: Regarding DPUB gap analysis note, it is not a document created by this group so we should sent it for review of people in this group.

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility

Tzviya: see note and review with the larger PWG

<tzviya>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2017JulSep/0026.html

Tzviya: headings and iFrame : WCAG doesn’t address heading requirements.

Avneesh: big picture  is that we now know what can go in WCAG 2.1 and timeline of silver is out of sync, so we need to do some work in PWG. The question is how to do it.One way is to create a document for publishing specific accessibility requirement, which acts as reference for PWG and also for feeding the requirements in Silver.

Tzviya: You can do it on an informal document on wiki.

<tzviya> final version of DPUB note: https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/

George: can't it be requirement in Publishing? ... If it cannot go to WCAG?

Avneesh: this group write with the same structure as WCAG, higher level principles and techniques below it. And for the intergroup relationships, would it be good to have the taskforce under PWG, AG and APA. It will resolve such issues. The document can inform what we want to accomplish and add to WCAG in longer term.

Tzviya: Such a combined task force will be difficult to manage.

George: nested heading is not a requirement in WCAG, should we put in Pub requirements? Can we have it More stringent in Pub than in general Web?

Avneesh: It is possible in WCAG if it becomes modular, which does not look posible in 2.1. The main question is what is the scope of the document?

Tzviya: not a formal document, oon a wiki and refreshed regularly

Avneesh: We can start from wiki and then see if it needs to mature as a working group note. 

Matt: make sure the WP is accessible, may feed technique for it.

Avneesh: We should start immediately on this doc, and list the principles before November this year.


George: hard core requirements are difficult to put forward, but with SHOULD, as company accomplish the best as possible

Avneesh: Lets discuss the structure of the document in next calls.

Charles: agree wiki approach ... list of SHOULD or MAY, tu MUST in the publishing side of it

Avneesh: My  understanding is to start from conceptual form (principles) and then develop techniques as the working group develops the sepcifications.

BillK: recommendation differ from WP/PWP/EPUB4

 ... more stringent for EPUB

Tzviya: first draft as a structure, and fills gaps afterwards

Avneesh: Bill, this is why we should start from principles because principles will be same for WP, PWP and EPUB 4, but techniques may differ.

George: requirements  are difficult to address in PWP, EPUB 4 etc. if it doesn’t exist in WP.

2. Horizontal review

Avneesh: APA has a checklist that should be used from first working draft and it should be again checked before reaching CR. Once we are done with checklist then the specifications are to be sent to APA group for review.

<Avneesh> http://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/checklist.html

Tzviya: not only a formal horizontal  review , we should keep an eye on ways to accomplish thing that are not accessible

Avneesh: Yes it should start from design stage itself.

Matt: need to ne involved in discussions

 ... s/ ne / be /

Avneesh: Matt, for catching attention of the group can we put an a11y label in Github?

Tzviya: Gh is now chaos

 ... more smaller issues easier to understand

 ... the name of the issue should alert on a11y. However having a label would be good.

Avneesh: For example, the Nav doc discussion that is happening, how accessibility piece comes in this discussion. Accessibility is user experience, we need navigation, but it does not matter if the navigation comes from JSON or from HTML navigation file.

Matt: we need clarity on requirement for the UA

Tzviya: philsophical questions should not be in Github , but in call

3. Assign group members for acting as liaison with other W3C groups

Avneesh: WCAG: we have Avneesh, Matt, Romain

Tzviya: if you need me you can inform me. I can be on some of those calls.

Matt: we may need to do a review in the group for 2.1 progression

Romain: I am in ACT group but not in plenary calls.

Avneesh: agenda is sent in advance. So, we can join the call when we have relevant topics.

Charles: We can have some people monitoring, look agenda items, and alert others when larger group is required.

George: let the group know when we need to join

Avneesh: APA ?

George: Janina attends and chairs the APA

<clapierre> Isn't Jason White also on APA? not sure if Jason is also active or participating with this group

George: we should familiarise with their checklist

Tzviya: Jason is also in APA.

Jason: just join from the WCAG meeting, on metadata

Tzviya: I do not think that we need to do much inside the APA group.

Avneesh: It looks we have sufficient number of people there. ARIA?

Jason: ARIA 1.1 goes to rec

Avneesh: Tzviya and Charles already there

George: relation between DPUB ARIA and ARIA?

Avneesh: DPUB ARIA is a module of ARIA.

Charles: co-chairing the personalization TF in ARIA

Tzviya:Another task force is starting in ARIA, the CSS ARIA TF

 ... could someone join?

Jason: need to be strategic in group involvement

Tzviya: very helpful

Avneesh: what is priority?

Jason: new layout features and AT

 ... how screen reader engage  that, box and grid layout, CSS doen’t reflex the DOM order

 ... how to make things available for the AT

Avneesh: It may be interesting for main PWG group also.

Avneesh: Silver TF?

Jason: WCAG may be incrementally adding requirements, or larger scale revision  may happen with Silver: AG has not decided yet

Avneesh: Is it right time to start our influence or wait?

Jason: wait after 2.1

 ... not possible to add in 2.1

 ... AG mostly developing support to gather requirements.

 ... may be input in their survey process?

Avneesh: Task forces, Cognitiv TF?

Tzviya: cogo has become the personalisation TF

Jason: Not really. The coga is under WCAG, and personalization under ARIA. digital pub should be represented there

Avneesh: WAI?

Tzviya: Mainly emails and sharing of information.

Jason: EO group

<tzviya> EOWG charter https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2015/charter6-2015-09

Jason: AG request for review

Avneesh: We should have liaison from this group or the business group? The business group has responsibility of communications.

Tzviya: the BISG is involved with EO

 ... be more familiar with the work there

BillK: As AC rep for BISG, would have more engagement with EO. I can be liaison with this group.

Avneesh: any other groups?

George: EO, training materiel an best practices, would be great to have it for publishing.

 ... EO meets at CSUN

Mia: can join in for EO as well

4. Work on audio sync text.

Avneesh: Media  Overlays is using smil which is outdated technology in W3C

Marisa We should get away from SMIL, choice between flat list or something more structured

Avneesh: We are in W3C, and we need to be clear about process that we used for making decisions. So, may be we should start from documenting requirements. What are the minimum user requirements, what are advance requirements, should it be designed for only browsers or is it designed for reading systems also.

Marisa: ok

Avneesh: Marisa, Daniel and I can start work on this document, we will first bring it to this group and then to main group.

Daniel: in Redium2, working with a replacement of smile in JSON syntax

 ... clipping in and out, reusing existing Web technologies

 ... slightly ahead in Readium2 project

Tzviya: great, but for the rec, we have to write.

Daniel: This was to inform the group. I agree that we should start from requirements.

Avneesh: meeting every week? do we need a poll?

 ... poll tomorrow.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

The minutes are at:


With regards

Received on Friday, 21 July 2017 07:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:14 UTC