<Matthew_Atkinson> Update from W3C Workshop on Web Games: https://www.w3.org/blog/2019/11/status-update-on-web-games-technologies/
<Matthew_Atkinson> Great to see the activity continuing after the workshop. Matthew has been working on some stuff, with a forthcoming article on 24 Accessibility later this month.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: last meeting in 2019 will be the 18th; resuming on the 8th.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Irfan: Pronounciation TF update. The technical document (likely a ~"Pronounciation Specification" i.e. with normative requirements) will be moved to WICG at some point, though work is ongoing on maturing it now.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina + Irfan: it will relate to more than just accessibility, hence moving it to a more "global" channel for publication.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Irfan: the TF is also working on other documents, including an updated working draft.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Irfan + Janina: User Scenarios document is progressing. A couple of the documents are going to be merged and published as APA notes.
<Matthew_Atkinson> (Note: Use Cases and Gap Analysis are the other documents)
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: there's an upcoming publication from the Personalization TF (more to follow).
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Concerned about some of the SC work in WCAG requiring input from Personalization TF.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Michael: they are trying to coordinate the timelines. (JF raises concern.)
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: Research Questions documents on Immersive Web and WebRTC User Requirements will be published in early 2020.
<MichaelC> GPU for the Web early draft charter
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: need to decide if we feel that a formal liaison might be needed.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew: Wondering how low-level this is (i.e. if accessiblity would be at this level, or one above); will have a look and think. Could Josh have a look also, I wonder, as he's lots of experience in this area?
<MichaelC> ACTION: atkinson to review GPU for the Web draft charter https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/grorg/admin/blob/wg-charter-draft/wg-charter.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2222 - Review gpu for the web draft charter https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/grorg/admin/blob/wg-charter-draft/wg-charter.html [on Matthew Atkinson - due 2019-12-11].
<MichaelC> ACTION: joshue to review GPU for the Web draft charter https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/grorg/admin/blob/wg-charter-draft/wg-charter.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2223 - Review gpu for the web draft charter https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/grorg/admin/blob/wg-charter-draft/wg-charter.html [on Joshue O Connor - due 2019-12-11].
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: Judy suggested that instead of trying to orchestrate a top-to-bottom review once every so-often (which has generally been every year), we should regularly try to identify one extra group that relates to accessibility.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: Therefore we can complete looking at the good research Becky has done and find several groups that would fit there...
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: ...then on an ongoing basis, look at new ones and decide which ones qualify.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: Just one each week/month, or all? What if a lot come up each month?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: if many come up at a given time that may be relevant, we will need to give a heads-up that more time is needed.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: We already have several from the current list.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: Could we identify one/two from that list to take to the meeting today?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: ^ Manga was already identified.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: (asks for views on the process)
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: (agrees that on a monthly basis may be better, though we don't necessarily know the participation level over time for groups that are new)
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: In the past, have we checked for activity when looking at the list on a yearly basis? Can't we check for activity as we go?
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: We could say that our practice was to see if a group has gained traction, and only raise accessibility-related groups that have participation.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: but then we have to track which ones to go back and look at.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: (agrees - could this be tenable if we are set up to track?)
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: Yes; could add an extra column for when the group was created.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: we'd also need to put in either 'no need to track' or assignees.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: ...or that we're watching it.
<MichaelC> Screen Capture
<Matthew_Atkinson> Michael: Janina reviewed in 2016; may need re-review after it matures; a wide review request has been sent out.
<MichaelC> TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.2
<Matthew_Atkinson> (we are not re-reviewing Screen Capture)
<Matthew_Atkinson> Gottfried: (would like to look at it)
<MichaelC> ACTION: gottfried to review TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.2 https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.2/
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2224 - Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and captions 1.2 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.2/ [on Gottfried Zimmermann - due 2019-12-11].
<Matthew_Atkinson> Becky: there's a summary of substantive changes in the Abstract
<MichaelC> action-2224?
<trackbot> action-2224 -- Gottfried Zimmermann to Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and captions 1.2 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.2/ -- due 2019-12-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2224
<MichaelC> action-2224: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/TTML_Profiles_for_Internet_Media_Subtitles_and_Captions_1.2
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2224 Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and captions 1.2 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.2/.
<MichaelC> Web Authentication: An API for accessing Scoped Credentials Level 2
<MichaelC> ACTION: janina to review WebAuthn Level 2 https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2225 - Review webauthn level 2 https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn-2/ [on Janina Sajka - due 2019-12-11].
<MichaelC> action-2225: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_Authentication:_An_API_for_accessing_Scoped_Credentials_Level_2
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2225 Review webauthn level 2 https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn-2/.
<MichaelC> action-2225: coordinate with John Rochford and Jason White
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2225 Review webauthn level 2 https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn-2/.
<Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Wonders if version 1 would have an impact on version 2.
<MichaelC> action-2225: Note that AG WG working on WCAG 2.2 SC related to WebAuth, check if it´s impacted by v2
<trackbot> Notes added to action-2225 Review webauthn level 2 https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn-2/.
<MichaelC> action-2225?
<trackbot> action-2225 -- Janina Sajka to Review webauthn level 2 https://www.w3.org/tr/webauthn-2/ -- due 2019-12-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2225
<scribe> scribe: becka11y
Matthew: previously discussed some issues with focusing behavior for video and audio - browsers vary on this
<Matthew_Atkinson> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5087
Matthew: perhaps was incorrect to interpret that W3C specified a certain focus behavior
<Matthew_Atkinson> Review tracker thread: https://github.com/w3c/htmlwg/issues/5
Matthew: no blocking issues -
okay to close
... there were a few things that had some interest and
observation but now show stoppers; will follow up on focus
issue for clarity
JF: concerned about treatment of
WebVT chapters
... chapters of a certain type no longer being displayed by the
UA is a concern
... reasoning is becasue it was not well implemented
Matthew: was concerned at first
but UA have never shown the chapter differently; thus couldn’t
really say this was a concern because browsers have never
implemented; It has been maintained as a valid ENUM value
because 3rd party media players may rely on it
... thus didn’t seem to be a big concern
JF: bug tracker at WebVTT last action was 2017, seeing various people saying we should keep this enum
Janina: Yes, this is what Matthew found - keep it;
Matthew: feel it should be implmented by all, but they are not removing it because some people do implement it
JF: concern about browsers being first class citizens above others;
Janina: yes, that is another discussion
JF: if is just an editorial change that changes from a must to a should or may
Matthew: I don’t think it has been downgraded - browsers still need to implement the value and pass it through
<Matthew_Atkinson> RRSAgent: make logs public
<Matthew_Atkinson> Trackbot, end meeting
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/2015/2016/ Default Present: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, Matthew_Atkinson, JonnyJames, JF, Irfan, MichaelC, Becka11y Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs Matthew_Atkinson JonnyJames JF Irfan MichaelC Becka11y Found Scribe: becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y Found Date: 04 Dec 2019 People with action items: atkinson gottfried janina joshue 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]