<George> George is #1 on the dial in list.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
drop item 1
13 September 2017
jb: it´s out
y´all got invites to join?
khs: yes
<Judy> s/y'all got invites/an invitation was sent out over wai ig/
mc: a couple joins, invites gone out, facilitators meeting but vacations slowing the start
<AWK> +AWK
khs: haven´t seen on wai-ig yet
but understand something will appear
jb: JS, MC, did you see CN email?
and is it same as LW stuff?
js: post to WAI-CC about push API?
for that, Charles and Léonie joined APA to discuss today
we didn´t have agreement about whether accessibility section should be in spec
but did agree that we won´t push the comment further
but that it will be noted in the disposition of comments that the commenter was not satisfied with the response
we also discussed how to effectively file comment on (non-W3C) Web Notifications spec
CN and LW advised we don´t need to include sample code as we had been planning, so should be ready to file soon
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017Aug/0025.html
js: ^ is draft APA comment on Web Notifications
CN mentioned another spec, but it´s not FPWD yet, we agreed we´ll pick it up when FPWD happens
jb: Léonie is still in-person liaison to APA?
js: yes
jb: and Charles sends APA stuff
and passes on to WAI CC
is that redundant or helpful?
js: the Notifications stuff is of wider interest
relates to payments for instance
<Judy> [JB hears that this is helpful, especially where the relevance may go beyond APA specifically]
underneath this, we need to develop a more consistent approach to getting in accessibility impact sections in specs
we feel like second class citizens, security / privacy has this standard in the transition procedures now, but we don´t
we did decide not to push further on that for Push
but still need to follow up on an open request to have one for Payments
khs: some a11y stuff has been removed from Payments stuff
we need to chase up
jb: I´ve heard of a few situations that accessibility impact sections have been proposed yet rejected
3 or so in the past year, is that accurate?
<Ryladog> No Accessibility mention in the NEW Commerce IG Charter
re payments, I need clear documentation of what was removed
khs: the new Payments group is the Commerce IG
no longer has a11y liaison
jb: but I really need the info on what´s removed
khs: I´ll try
<Judy> scribe: Judy
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html
mc: I found a draft commerce charter here, saying that it is under review by w3c membership
... there was a message sent in july to membership
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2014/04/payments/webpayments_charter.html
mc: comparing the (draft?) commerce charter to the web payments interest group, it is true that accessibility liaisons have been removed. Had I seen it earlier i would have flagged that. But actually, all liaisons were removed.
KHS: well but all mentions of accessibility were also removed. All.
MC: That seems to be the case, yes. I don't see any mention of accessibility.
... but review just closed.
JB: We need to get this fixed if as it appears several internal horizontal review steps were missed. Will pursue through w3m.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
jb: please send at least a pointer to a version of the spec that had a11y stuff, and a version where it´s gone
... returning to a11y impact statements
<Judy> [jb hears push api, and payments, turned down; but OTOH, css requesting & proposing one]
<Judy> [js will pursue one on payments]
js, mc: would have to look for others rejected, a few accepted
jb: back to topic, sounds like Charles´ updates helpful especially where the relevance potentially goes beyond APA specifically
awk: WCAG published 16 Aug
22 Aug was deadline for new SC
2 from that deadline are still in open CfC
but should wrap up soon
we may publish the September version earlier than planned (which was 19 sept)
so reviewers can get a stable version asap to review
that would be the last WD prior to TPAC
during that time we´ll aggregate feedback, work on Understanding and Techniques (with EO)
mc: Supplemental guidance
and ¨rationalizing¨ the SC with each other
jb: when do you expect to know when you´ll be figuring out when and what to plan testing for, for CR?
advance planning, helpers?
awk: we know we need to work on that, it´s fallen behind the issue du jour
jb: happy to brainstorm with you
jb: beyond above, anything specific?
khs: I´ll have limited availability to help over the next few month
gk: Publishing BG discussing moving EPub and EPub a11y specs into ISO
khs: that is, getting ISO stamps on them, not moving the work, right?
gk: yes
jb: afaik that´s proceeding as planned
gk: <drily> it´s complicated
jb: I worked on the WCAG 2.0 ISO endorsement
so can help
gk: as international standard, or technical specification?
khs: TS
<Judy> https://www.iso.org/standard/58625.html
<George> https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/wiki/ISO-Standardization-Discussion