<jasonjgw> Is anyone else in the Zoom meeting? It's silent here.
<interaccess> scribenick: Joshue108
<Joshue_108> scribenick: Joshue_108
<scott_h> running late - hoping to come into meeting in the next 10 minutes or so
JW: The news here is that the wiki page is greatly enhanced.
I've been working on it
JW: Seems to be improving, some more editing to do.
Basic info in place
JW: Lets review and make decisions on where it goes.
JOC: Sounds good.
... Can you give overview of whats new?
JW: Mostly editorial but I added some new references to the final section.
Details on remote platforms a11y
JW: We had an action from last
week, about a point of regard, and getting that in the
doc.
... We should capture that in the RAUR and in this doc.
... I'll document that.
... One of the scenarios that was mentioned - if sign language
is happening the video needs to show the interpreter and not
just the person who is speaking.
... It should show both.
... Correct.
... Should not show just one, and should show the person
signing by default.
JS: A little more, it needs to show the person signing, and the person who is communicating, else this is a misinterpretation.
<jasonjgw> Jason will open an issue related to RAUR on GitHub.
JOC: Thanks Jason
Making final call for comments on https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Accessibility_of_Remote_Meetings
SH: Thanks to Josh for addressing my comments - looks good.
JW: Good news
JW: This is ongoing
The state last time was we were expecting some comments from the PING.
Haven't noticed any yet is it on the way?
JOC: I presume so, I can follow up with them if needed.
<jasonjgw> Josh will revisit correspondence and follow up if appropirate with PING.
JW: Any other actions on this?
<jasonjgw> Josh queries whether we're looking for user needs and requirements regarding privacy/security topics.
<jasonjgw> Or are we just looking for issues?
JW: I think it is, at this point pending their comments - we are casting around to determine issues, if there are.
SH: Yes, and once we do that, we can pull out use cases in a more targetted way.
JW: They are asking for a joint meeting.
We can share info that comes up, but lets hold the discussion back until we get comments from them.
SH: That sounds good to me.
+1 to Jason
JB: Can we look back to Accessible remote meetings?
JS: Commenting on this, I want to confirm next steps.
Should we communicate we have had a look and are not comfortable about saying more until we have had our joint meet?
JW: Seems appropriate to me.
Josh will be revisiting that, and could be a good way to clarify our stance.
<scribe> ACTION: Josh to contact PING and update them on TF stance on privacy and a11y
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2248 - Contact ping and update them on tf stance on privacy and a11y [on Joshue O Connor - due 2020-04-15].
JW: Anything else?
We are in agreement. Any other comments?
JW: This where we stand on the two drafts.
We have more issues in GH, Josh provided an overview of them.
<jasonjgw> Josh: notes a growing list of issues on GitHub in relation to our drafts.
https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/55 - Add requirement for shape as well as color be used? The question here, is can the shape of particular objects provide particular affordances. Interesting.
JW: Maybe take a week to comment and see what generates discussion.
JS: Would like to hear an overview?
JOC: Sounds good.
Ensure no essential information is conveyed by a fixed colour alone
JB: If you are swapping vision based info, with some others, I wonder would that help?
SN: I wonder if they are thinking of congnitive issues?
Stand icons or symbol sets? To convey types of info. Needs work to figure that out.
JW: Was not sure if this was a variation on the conveying information by colour.
JS: We may need more info.
SN: I agree
... I can think of limited examples in every day life - like
road signage. Where info is conveyed in the shape.
<jasonjgw> Supplementary ways of conveying information need not require colour contrast changes.
JOC: +1 to Steve 2.
SN: I can think of limited examples where there is standard iconography in desktop environments.
These have become standards - limited applications and not sure how to carry that over.
JW: needs info
<scribe> ACTION: Josh to follow up on needs info for https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/55
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2249 - Follow up on needs info for https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/55 [on Joshue O Connor - due 2020-04-15].
https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/70 - REQ 3b: Turning turn off of 'mute' of non-critical messaging could be problematic. This is interesting as it relates to the idea of muting resulting in 'data loss' - worth discussing.
JW: This is in an XR environment?
JOC: Yes.
JW: If the user is choosing to
suppress those, they are deliberatly controlling the flow of
information.
... Not sure what to say about that.
... It is an arugment for more granular control of message
types.
... We have something similar in screen readers.
Where you can skim by hearing the beginning of things..
JW: Maybe a strategy of having them interupptable - may be an issue for those who are easily distracted.
Or if necessary have more that two categories of them?
SH: Agree with Janina - it is like a verbosity setting for the user.
JW: Could have different levels, not just two.
SH: User should choose what that preference is.
JS: Like being able to go pass meta data to the subject.
SH: A verbosity setting would help with being granular.
JS: You can control this on the
fly.
... Its powerful.
JW: This would work with auditory
and visual notices.
... Josh, is that good?
<jasonjgw> Josh will liaise with the author of the comment and develop a response.
<scribe> ACTION: Josh to follow on with update from RQTF on https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/70
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2250 - Follow on with update from rqtf on https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/70 [on Joshue O Connor - due 2020-04-15].
JB: Whats the review
window?
... There isn't so much feedback on the physicality of XR.
https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/#motion-agnostic-interactions
<jasonjgw> Josh notes requirements for multiple input methods and section 4.3.
JB: This is the opposite of what
I am saying.
... I'll have a look
... Are there other physical related ones?
Dont see any.
4.5 would take care of the issues I've been noticing.
JW: Could you log a Github issue?
JB: I need to look at 4.3 and
4.5.
... I'm working on some VR event stuff
JOC: If you could add a GH issue that would be helpful.
Discovery of controls would be good.
Do we have anything on error control?
JB: <discusses immersive caption feedback>
Issues with caption positioning.
We are missing lots here.
JW: Josh - can we take this up next week?
JS: It would be good to put missing stuff in a TOC.
JW: Good idea
JW: Judy? Comments
JB: I have a question - around final call for comments. Did I misread?
JS: Yes.
JW: We just want to get to a point where we can get more input etc
JB: I'd like to have a section on
the top, thats focussed on a user who has different
accessibility needs, and the person who is trying to set up an
accessible call.
... Also need to resize windows.
So you can see a speakers face etc.
Faces need to be well lit.
There's stuff that needs to be on top.
JW: Heres a proposal.. in section 5, we have that.
For people who are selecting platoforms and attending meetings.
Could be organised by moving that section to the start..
<discusses options>
JB: Sounds good, can you do it?
JW: Yes, will look into it.
JB: I'm getting contacted by other organisations who have guidance on accessible remote meetings.
I'd like to keep moving this so that people know that we are working on it..
SH: I was on the OZWAI call - and they were talking about a11y of online meetings.
JOC: I also presented the RAUR to a group of ~ 70 AT pros in Ireland yesterday.
At the CHAT seminar run by FreedomTech, project run by Enable Ireland and Disability Federation Ireland
JS: We should talk about bugs!
JB: We can link to a11y info, need to be a little careful.
JS: Making them more interactive and visible would help.
JW: We will take up our open issues next week.
Will have enough to keep busy.
JS: Agenda request for next week.
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/JW: A little more/JS: A little more/ Succeeded: s/ SH: I wonder if th/ SN: I wonder if th/ Succeeded: s/moving this/moving this so that people know that we are working on it./ Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, Joshue_, SteveNoble, scott_h Present: jasonjgw janina Joshue_ SteveNoble scott_h Joshue_108 Found ScribeNick: Joshue108 WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Joshue108> ... Found ScribeNick: Joshue_108 Inferring Scribes: Joshue108, Joshue_108 Scribes: Joshue108, Joshue_108 ScribeNicks: Joshue108, Joshue_108 Found Date: 08 Apr 2020 People with action items: josh 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]