<janina> scribe: janina
<Joshue108> <intros>
<Joshue108> scribe: Josh
<Joshue108> JS: I'm chair of APA and we have a lot of TFs
<Joshue108> We welcome you to our work
<Joshue108> Hope you find a welcome home, been involved in standards development a la W3C for ~ 15 years
<Joshue108> Have been involved with Daisy and other regs
<Joshue108> Deep background in the tech, I'm an AT user also.
<Joshue108> MC: I'm the staff contact to APA
<Joshue108> And the related TFs, I look after the process and have been at w3c for 13 years.
<Joshue108> Worked in accessiblity outside for several years.
<janina> jo: Introduces himself especially current responsibilities around use cases and emerging tech
<janina> jgw: Introduces himself -- involved sinc around 1997
<janina> Wow, we have two former WCAG chairs in this group!
<Joshue108> <snap>
<janina> estella: Introduces herself, heavily involved in media a11y
<Joshue108> http://www.imac-project.eu
<Joshue108> JS: We are happy for your input..
<Joshue108> Anyone talk to you about IRC dependency?
<Joshue108> Est: Yes.
<janina> jgw: Moving to WebRTC discussion ...
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
<janina> jo: Our use cases cover RTC, because not everything that should be in WebRTC is yet there
<janina> jo: Notes that some of our use cases are covered in other specs, so we're trying to be appropriate in the specs we address
<janina> jgw: Was suggesting Josh's document should cover use cases/user scenarios to support RFC requirements doc, which has reqs, but not supported by use cases
<janina> jo: It's RFC5194
<Joshue108> JS: We want to be able to explain if there is something missing.
<Joshue108> And the real reason is the user scenario.
<jasonjgw> Janina suggests we need to capture/explain the user need and scenario - not just each requirement.
<janina> jo: Most obvious that WebRTC needs to support RTT asap
<janina> jo: Reviews distinction between RTT and standard IRC behavior and how it serves different use cases
<janina> jo: RTT for deaf & hard of hearing; IRC for blind and other TTS users
<janina> jgw: Asks what we should do to advance this while Josh is on holliday?
<janina> jo: Check whether we're happy with the use case write-ups
<janina> jo: Also an approach on getting support in WebRTC
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases#Further_group_review_required
<janina> jgw: Asking about interfacing with APA
<janina> jo: also on back writing use cases for reqs that don't have them
<janina> jo: Have notes which ones relate where
<janina> jo: So as much review as can be done
<janina> jo: and check on the mappings, please
<janina> jgw: still worried whether we've identified a use case for each req
<janina> jo: mostly, but let's check on that and have a discussion
<janina> jo: We also don't want to get stuck on that
<Joshue108> +1 to Jason to dividing it up
<Joshue108> JS: Perhaps we may just want to review and take it up when Josh comes back.
<jasonjgw> Janina queries the time constraint regarding WebRTC.
<jasonjgw> Josh isn't entirely sure.
<janina> js: Suggest we want to be sure to schedule time at TPAC to clarify timelines, what's possible still
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
<janina> ACTION: Janina to draft rtt use case question to the WebRTC group.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2202 - Draft rtt use case question to the webrtc group. [on Janina Sajka - due 2019-07-17].
<janina> jgw: Discussion started on list on what a11y reqs might be
<janina> jgw: We're concerned about native support for a11y
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Wot_usecases
<janina> jo: Notes his architecture review for APAjo: Just want to note we have good use cases -- direct hearing aid support, traffic light info, etc.
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/WoT_Architecture_review
<janina> jo: Notes many ways iot communicates
<janina> jo: also a scripting api
<janina> jo: looking for common ways to address com
<janina> jo: also security/privacy
<Joshue108> Q: To what degree is accessibility an implementation detail of WoT?
<Joshue108> Q: What are useful examples of Linked Data Vocabulary that can provide semantic accessibility extensions to thing descriptions?
<janina> jgw: Asks whether a11y depends on how devices are described in the json-ld
<janina> jo: example purpose of a thing
<janina> jo: or dynamic interaction
<Joshue108> Q Accessibility questions about Thing to Thing descriptions
<Joshue108> JS: I've not heard things that give me a lot of concern.
<Joshue108> On the dumb device end, on the UI we will have issues but thats par for the course.
<Joshue108> WoT have said they will support WCAG.
<Joshue108> But if over an API, we have options of alternatives to interface with it.
<Joshue108> Will be diverse, depending on implementation.
<Joshue108> But if there is a common API, we are ok, to the sensor end. Maybe straightforward.
<Joshue108> Some of the simpler sensor aspects have resulted in low power simple data streams.
<Judy> JB: coming back to the issue of RTT integration in RTC, there are a few questions we need to resolve in the next month or so.
<Judy> ...specifically, whether the current polyfill - javacscript approach provides adequate support in RTC 1.0, since the issue queue on that spec is closing or closed.
<Judy> ...there was review several years ago but not recently, and we need to determine if there are (possibly regulatory) requirements that should be better reflected for now, and I had started to check with colleagues in the deaf community, and with W3C team contact for RTC WG
<Judy> ...one version I had heard is that it may only need an explanatory paragraph and a pointer to be added to the spec, but this needs confirmation
<Judy> JS: I took an action earlier in the call to reach out to RTC WG to inquire whether they think what they have is sufficient
<Judy> JB: great thanks and would you mind coordinating with me on that, given that the WG thinks they've been told by PLH and DHM to not accept any new issues
<Judy> JS: happy to coordinate
<Judy> JB: great, thanks
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/be better reflected for now/be better reflected for now, and I had started to check with colleagues in the deaf community, and with W3C team contact for RTC WG/ Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, Joshue Present: jasonjgw janina Joshue Joshue108 Found Scribe: janina Found Scribe: Josh WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 116 total lines.) Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick? Scribes: janina, Josh Found Date: 10 Jul 2019 People with action items: janina 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]