<scribe> scribe: joanie
JB: Next meeting April 25th.
Janina: Regrets in advance.
JB: Last time I asked people to
check with their groups if they plan to meet at TPAC.
... Updates?
<Ryladog> I will be at TPAC
JB: You need to notify as requested.
Janina: APA plans to meet. I will fill out the form.
Joanie: ARIA is planning on meeting. I've already filled out the form.
George: Publishing will be meeting at TPAC. I'm wondering about a task force of the Publishing Group. How does that work?
JB: Great question to raise with
me. First dibs go to chartered Working Groups.
... Sometimes established Task Forces can request time, though
it might not be as much as a Working Group.
... Sometimes Community Groups can also get a few hours.
... Are you talking about an established task force,
George?
George: We have a task force in Publishing.
Tzviya: I filled out the form for the Publishing Working Group.
The task force George is talking about is not formally registered.
I've not yet requested to meet with APA or ARIA.
But I will work with George, Avneesh, Janina, and Joanie.
JB: I think this is a separate
question than one of the task forces requesting meeting
space.
... If you're interested in a subgroup meeting, then let me
know.
Tzviya: George let's work this out offline.
George: Sounds good.
JB: I would be interested if you
get a meeting going. I'll join if I can.
... Anything else on TPAC meetings?
JB: Janina, based on our discussions at the task force meeting this morning, I added this agenda item.
<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2018Apr/att-0004/captcha-update-20180406.html
Could you please let people know what's happening with the CAPTCHA document?
Janina: URL inserted
(above)
... This will be a revision to the existing document.
The RQTF is pretty much done with this. There are a few more tweaks based on this morning's conversation.
But the expectation is that this document will be passed to APA for publication as a FPWD.
Feedback requested.
JB: Questions?
One of my question is: I'm trying to recall ... did we talk about how to update this more frequently?
Here's a global update, but we hope to update it / add a few things.... something more frequent than every 14 years.
I hadn't realized it was quite that many years.
Second question, on an ongoing basis, I think we've been having some good work in RQTF. But relatively few people involved.
What would you think about coordinating with Katie?
Stating that it is being bumped from RQTF up to APA.
I'm just thinking that we had intended to do more of this than we have been.
Janina: I think the only reason is that we don't yet have formal mechanisms in place for issue tracking and commenting.
But I believe we are close for having that.
JB: Good point. That would be happening in APA and not RQTF, right?
Janina: Correct.
JB: So you'll be doing this in the next week or two?
Janina: Yes.
JB: One reason I'm asking is that APA has a charter in progress.
WAI-IG hasn't heard much from APA lately.
I think it would be good for them to hear more about this before chartering.
What about by end of April?
Janina: How about first week of May?
Katie: Then they should send comments to....
JB: No, we're not talking about where to send comments, etc.
Katie: Try to get discussion going and then get email going about where to send feedback?
JB: Correct. We want to help them get review.
While it's in progress rather than when it's done.
Janina: I'm very pleased with what RQTF has done: Well documented with pointers to research.
JB: Good point.
Now I'm thinking of other things....
Janina: I think the next thing coming up will be VR and AR.
JB: I know your charter will need to be in circulation before then as well.
Giving good visibility to the great work your doing would be helpful.
JB: I put this one on, checking in. I know it's sometimes hard to answer questions.
Has APA had any further opportunity to review community groups.
Katie: Today we started the Web Credibility Community Group, funding by Facebook and Google.
Working on ways to prove things are not "fake news"
All sorts of interesting people have joined this group.
I have joined because I think it's fascinating and really important.
I got on the queue because I need to leave early and need to see if there's anything I need to do on WAI-IG charter
JB: While I'm reordering agenda, any other news related to Community Groups?
Janina: I think it's going to be May, but it's not forgotten.
<Judy> agenda order is 9, 10
JB: I think there was a pending discussion on tracking accessibility issues in community groups to help out APA.
I wonder if we overlooked WAI-IG working on that.
Agenda reordered.
JB: I know there's good work that
goes on in accessibility at Facebook.
... Accessibility of controls seem like a canary in the coal
mine related to cognitive.
The public seems to be having problems with that.
The discussion in the congressional hearings might suggest accessibility guidelines might be relevant.
Anyone else have suggestions for Katie?
Katie: One of the components is about bubbling up credibility claims.
Talking about making sure it's native to the browser rather than a proxy or plugin.
Tzviya: Related to this, I've been somewhat involved with verifiable claims.
Some of the work happening there is also ... they're working on building alternatives.
I'm looking for an article that's called something like "Is there an alternative to Facebook"
<tzviya> https://www.coindesk.com/theres-alternative-facebook-called-self-sovereign-identity/
I'll post the article (link above)
JB: Katie, maybe you can look at that and bring it to the community group.
Katie: Sure.
JB: I'll ask everyone to keep thinking about these issues.
Send the items to our list, or here, or to Katie.
<Ryladog> https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
JB: The WAI-IG charter successfully completed its review
We expect to announce this soon.
Because of other things that were super urgent, I never even got a chance to send out a reminder.
And we still managed to clear the threshold of support, even without any reminders.
Positive review and we welcome the support.
Katie: No negative?
JB: That's correct.
... Anything else?
JB: I thought when I did the agenda, I had included the link in the item.
<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues
There is a publicly visible strategy funnel which queues up things we're interested in exploring.
(link above)
This is available at any point.
For instance, when Katie was talking about credibility of information and privacy settings, you can look and see if there's a item for that in the funnel.
Now that there's a community group, it's moved out of the funnel.
I (or Tzviya or George) need to add an item there for accessibility of math
The stages in the funnel itself are pretty specific.
Right now there are around 84 issues around which additional work is needed.
You can add tags to them too.
Currently, only a few have accessibility tags, but I'd imagine that many of them should have accessibility tags.
Does anyone have any questions about how this works, or want to comment?
Or would it be useful to have a different kind of presentation of this?
One of the things I'd love to do is get people's help on scanning ahead regarding what issues we should be thinking about.
So we can at least flag things for people's awareness.
Comments or thoughts?
George: Is this a question about the math?
JB: This is not specifically about accessible math, but it could be.
Accessible math should be in the strategy funnel, but I don't know if it is yet.
This is the tool we plan to be using for any W3C technologies which we'll be advancing.
Jeanne: How do we get these assigned? I see a number of them have an assignee.
JB: Great question!
The strategy funnel actually has a view that is multicolumn and goes stage by stage.
I'm not seeing it right now.
But the point is that things get introduced. Then if it reaches a critical mass for interest, it is discussed by staff.
Then we talk about assigning someone from the Team.
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
So you would need to try to elevate something with enough interest to get it assigned.
Are you asking about getting a non-team assignment or something else, Jeanne?
Jeanne: I'm interested in the authoring tool and would love to be involved.
JB: Comment in the funnel and express your interest.
<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
JB: I will assume by default you (Jeanne) are interested in anything related to authoring tools.
The link I just inserted has the view I had mentioned earlier.
We have an active effort to get some more resources assigned to authoring tools.
Anything else on the strategy funnel?
By the way, the particular tool here is github. And we continue to be interested in its accessibility.
(Describes contents of 2nd link)
Would people want to look in more detail at any point?
George: It's hard to believe that math is not in the bucket for strategic examination.
JB: It is here.
There's something in the investigation column here filed by Ivan.
It's tagged for accessibility.
But it doesn't say anything about the potential need for a workshop.
You or Tzviya or Joanie or I can add this.
George: I'll take the link to this site and post it to the group I'm working with on math.
JB: My suggestion would be to update it first.
<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/43
Because without the update, it gives the impression that there has not been any update.
The link above is the old link on accessible math.
I would suggest, George, that you or someone add a comment to that item.
And then circulate it.
Make sense?
George: Yeah.
Tzviya: I sort of half-jokingly asked if we could campaign for items. But in all seriousness, there are things here that I've wanted for years.
Would it make sense to comment on those items?
JB: Yes. Tag them for accessibility, comment on why the items are important, get others involved, etc.
Tzviya: I think it would be good to circulate this because I don't think many people know it exists.
JB: This is a public link.
This is exactly the kind of interest I was hoping to spur, so thank you.
JB: On behalf of the chairs, who are not on the call, I would like to update people that the AG WG is working very hard to process a large number of issues and gather the remaining implementations that are needed
and to test those implementations and reconcile those tests
They also are trying to resolve some of the additional concerns raised by COGA TF
They are close to reaching a decision regarding advancing on Rec track.
There's also discussion and harmonization work in Europe and China on this front.
I trust those of you who are interested are following on that list.
JB: I thought that there were some follow ups which were to happen from the last call.
One of those got some discussion, but I'm not sure the other one did.
There's been some discussion regarding whether W3C can publish specs in ePub format.
George, you're having a discussion with Michael on that.
I think maybe the next step is for Michael or me to discuss it with PLH to get some resources on board.
George: The script Ivan created is there, but rough. It needs work before it can be depended upon for publishing specs as ePub.
<Judy> ACTION: JB talk with Philippe about Respec output as ePub
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Talk with philippe about respec output as epub [on Judy Brewer - due 2018-04-18].
But there is a good foundation there.
JB: I just assigned in action to myself to talk to PLH about that, though I will update the due date.
Thank you George for uncovering those bits.
There had also been some team-side discussion regarding publishing the ePub specs themselves.
George, did any of that cycle back to you?
George: The specs are already on the W3C website.
JB: In final form?
George: The approved specs from Jan 2017, published by IDRF were copied to w3C space.
So it's the same specs; just put into W3C website.
JB: Ok. I think there was an open question on ISOization of these.
George: We had that as an agenda topic on the Publishing Business Group agenda yesterday.
I put forth a proposal on how we might move forward on this.
It's getting some thumbs up.
JB: What is the proposal?
George: I suggested there were 5 options to move forward.
The community group is working to publish ePub 3.2.
When it's finished this year, it would be put forward as a community group report
Same thing for the accessibility-related spec
ePub 3.??? would be put forth as an international standard.
The accessibility spec is not part of any ISO standard.
JB: But it's a community group report which would have no weight at all.
George: This would need to then be brought into ISO.
JB: Is there a public link you could provide?
Tzviya: It's public.
<tzviya> minutes from Publishing BG https://w3c.github.io/publ-bg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-04-10-pbg
JB: There may be strategy reasons why it's important to kick it over to ISO.
But they don't have the same requirements we have with respect to horizontal review.
I have some concerns about that approach.
<Judy> ACTION: JB follow up with George and Tzviya on Publishing BG strategy for ISO
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Follow up with george and tzviya on publishing bg strategy for iso [on Judy Brewer - due 2018-04-18].
JB: I'll add Ivan to that action.
George: So the concern and urgency is that the EU is putting forward accessibility requirements on publications.
And they need to reference established standards.
The EU could start out creating their own set of standards and we're trying to prevent such a fork.
JB: You're trying to take something from a former IPRF standard to a W3C community group and then take that into ISO.
In order to use that in Europe.... we've been told not to worry, that it's easy. But it turns out there's a transition step.
And the time this step takes makes it even longer.
Tzviya: There are a lot of politics behind this.
JB: As noted, there's further discussion which needs to happn.
George: The only other item present in my mind is my annoyance with NISO and not have accessibility in their strategic plan.
JB: Is there something we can do to help with that?
George: I hope so.
JB: We'll take it offline to discuss further.
<Judy> ACTION: JB and George discuss NISO accessibility
Janina: We had a question at APA today regarding a track for Web For All.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - And george discuss niso accessibility [on Judy Brewer - due 2018-04-18].
JB: We did indeed get an invitation.
I'm trying to remember the date and city in case there's anyone near.
Do you have the info handy?
Janina: No.
JB: The request came to Shadi.
Therefore if you have any updated info, please pass it along to Shadi.
Janina: Will do.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/JB:/George:/ Succeeded: s/Anish/Avneesh/ Succeeded: s/negative./negative?/ Succeeded: s/of support/of support, even without any reminders./ Succeeded: s/and work in China/and harmonization work in Europe and China/ Present: Joanmarie_Diggs Tzviya janina Katie_Haritos-Shea Judy George Found Scribe: joanie Inferring ScribeNick: joanie Found Date: 11 Apr 2018 People with action items: jb WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]