Meeting minutes
<janina> /join #rqtf
<Fazio> zoom says host has another meeting in progress
Oh, I'd just love to have a hot spices contest in the group.
Agenda Review & Announcements
<JenStrickland> If others are going to be at TPAC, perhaps we could have that intro chat there?
janina Lots of introductions to go around.
TPAC 2024 Planning
matatk We have a failry busy agenda today.
matatk: As we get invites to group meetings, we will update wikis and other relevant pages.
matatk: There is a W3C rate at the Hilton.
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
Roy: We've got six charters to review.
Immersive-Web Working Group Charter
<Roy> - charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
roy: Immersive Web WG charter.
Roy: No big changes. Also there is a mention of XAUR.
Roy: I think it's good.
matatk: Not much change. A11y is mentioned in a umber of ways.
matatk: Nothing concerning to say.
matatk: The most significatn change (probably) is that the whole WebXR suite of specs have moved to a living document model (like HTML).
matatk: Speak now or hold ye peace until the next rechartering?
matatk: Going, gone...
Verifiable Credentials WG recharter
<Roy> - charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: Verifiable Credentials WG.
Roy: They want to coordinate with us for use cases for Verifiale Credentials. They also ant to work with us to kill CAPTCHA.
Roy: I'm okay with this one, too.
matatk: Janina and I are pleased, too.
matatk: They want to amplify the use cases from the RQTF that we have. This is fine in our opinion.
matatk: Any questions or concerns or objections, even?
<JenStrickland> no objection from me.
matatk: Remember that charters are very importan. They set the scope of a WG. Especially if it's a new charter, it is talking about completely new work.
matatk: These are recharters, so no dramatic changes.
janina: Kill CAPTCHA came otu of us and we will be working on that.
RDF-star Group Charter
<Roy> - charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: This seems low-level, so okay to us.
matatk: We've looked at this and made the sme determination in the past.
<JenStrickland> no objection from me.
matatk: Taken!
i18n WG & IG rechartering
<Roy> - WG charter: https://
<Roy> - IG charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: I18n WG and IG.
Roy: obviously two charters, WG and IG.
Roy: They don't mention us but they are also a horizontal wWG reviewing all documents out of an i18n perspective.
Roy: No comments.
matatk: The WG charter is a recharter, since we already have an i18n WG. We have a good relationship with them and I dont have any concerns about the WG charter.
matatk: IGs don't preduce normative specs. Sometimes members of W3C can't, for diferent reasons, engage in standardization, but they want to engage anyway. IGs allow discussion to take place and for people to harmonize, learn to know each other and the environemnt in which the standardization may happen (elsewhere).
matatk: A CG (Community group) is not an official W3C group but just works to incubate things nicely a little in a gray zone.
matatk: IG members can't take part in spec work.
<JenStrickland> back
matatk: We don't see any need to block this. Any quesions on that?
<JenStrickland> no questions or objections
Security Interest Group Charter
Security Interest Group Charter
<Roy> - charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: There is a new IG, thogh.
Roy: Security Interest Group.
Roy: They will take over the horizontal review part for Security WG.
Roy: IG doesn't publish documents but they will provide horizontal reviews froma security perspective.
janina: IGs help manage specific work of various WGs working on specs and coordinate on that so it all makes sense. This will be our main contact on security going forward.
matatk: The five areass of horizontal review are a11y, i18n, privacy, security and overall architectural considerations (which is what the Technical Architecture Group, TAG, looks afetr).
matatk: NO concerns on my part.
<JenStrickland> no concerns or objections from me
matatk: Any objections?
Audio Group Charter
<Roy> - charter: https://
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: Audio WG.
Roy: They mentioned us in coordination. They want to work with us so that audio streams from speech synths aren't adversely affected by web audio streams.
matatk: In terms of the difference between htis one and the last charter of this group, the vast majority of the differences concern date updates. Other than that, one of the W3C groups which is related, the Audiobooks WG, was removed . No change on a11y in it.
matatk: Any questions?
janina: We provided the importance of speech synths to them ages ago.
<JenStrickland> Ah, that Out of Scope helps.
<JenStrickland> Agreed, I think the Scope & Out of Scope helps to make it clear it isn't necessary. I wish it were clearer across the board, but everything is a work in progress. *smile*
matatk: I don't see that the charter needs changin. Thanks for the questions, though.
janina: It mirrors what happened in the past. We literally had these kinds of conersations back then and then didn't have anythign to say when the specs came up.
matatk: Does anyone have any objections?
HR A11y Review Comment Tracker https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/a11y-review
No definition of what constitutes an A, AA, or AAA conformance Level
<Roy> - issue: w3c/
Roy: There is a new comment.
Fazio: I came a cross some info a few weeks ago. It seems to me that a11y companies and professionals and the industry at large have an obvious interpretation that there is some kind of severity based off of conformance levels, A, AA or AAA. You would assume that one would build off of the other. There is no definition as to what A, AA, or AAA
meean in terms of severity. All level A means is that it is a minimum level conformance.
Fazio: That doesn't really define much. Minimum level doesn't tell you how this impacts persosn with disabilities, hwo it impacts the a11y of something, or anything much. However, organizations and even governements are interpreting it as such.
Fazio: This shouldn't be left out in the open for people to somply interpret.
Fazio: Janina posted this to me ina sort of errata form. I think we can't dfine the conformance levels this time.
Fazio: An example would be the demotion of Pluto. If you meet three criteria, you are a planet; PLuto met two. The same would be very hard in the WCAG.
matatk: This is a very long thread. When I looked at it last time, I did see some suggestions, among them from Alasatair, one of the AG WG chairs, as to what could be done.
matatk: Paul has pointed out that there is non-normative guidance on this issue but what I saw in the thread was some suggestions as to hwo that could be made clearer.
Fazio: Like I said...
janina: The issue for us is do we as a gruop think that we might take a formal stand on this or not.
PaulG: Does it affect a11y?
janina: Do we need to weigh in as APA on a change?
Fazio: I would like to talk about it in the group - that's why I brought it up.
janina: I'm notclear at the moment that it is meanignful to schedule this issue in the APA since the discussion is going hotly in the thread.
matatk: There have been new things suggested sine I last looked If any of the thigns that were suggested were, in your opinion, sufficient, David, you may say "I think this is sufficient". I think there were some failry well-developed wording from, among others, Alastair. If you don't think either of those is sufficient, then you can perhaps point
us to it and tell us why it isn't.
matatk: What about going with something that is on the talbe or a modification of something?
matatk: I don't think a normative definition would be possible for 2.x, since that's just too mcomplex.
matatk: The non-normative work is something else.
matatk: You don't need APA to chime in.
matatk: If you want to raise it with APA, that thread is so long we won't be able to grock it really easily. If you could point to a specific entry in that thread where somethign has been suggested and explain why it isn't sufficient, that could be the starting point of a discussion on it. Maybe in this forum, maybe not.
Fazio: I was trying to go for the most appropriatte, best, finite route. If we as a group came up with a formal stance on this, that would be the most impactful.
Fazio: Perhaps just "conformance levels aren't indicative of severity" ina n errata form would suffice.
matatk: Might you come back to this in a couple of weeks and then we might discuss it?
PaulG: NO meeting last week.
CSS Update (Paul) https://github.com/w3c/css-a11y/issues
PaulG: No meeting last week.
matatk: View Transitions have come up for review recently
matatk: View Transition classes, actually, from an architctural perspective.
matatk: We are mointoring what CSS is doing form an a11y perspective.
matatk: I think that what our task would be in terms of View Transitions would be to come up with something that says "Make view transitiosn as unobrusive as possible and respect the Reduce Motion MQ".
matatk: Can we enable people to filter out motion of any kind? How?
matatk: It's not just CSS, it's animated GIFs, it's a lot of stuff.
matatk: Has this sort of general issue come up recently?
PaulG: I think the new wspec, it's just repeating things that... it's just moving responsibility from JS to CSS.
PaulG: I don't know that it would need additional advice.
PaulG: Because it's in CSS, it's actually in the same pplace where we would expect a prefers or reduce MQ to be.
PaulG: That would e far better than hving it straddlign between Js and CSS.
PaulG: If there is a proposal for no motion, then that's a nother thing. We don't have this currently.
PaulG: Putting htat back into to the layout engine may reduce osme pesons's concerns.
matatk: I don't think we are at that stage yet, but thanks for the eloquent explanation.
matatk: The UA could always decide not to animate GIFS.
PaulG: The UA has more control.
matatk: All fothsi very helpful to me and hopefully to others.
matatk: We will get to the EPUB discussion next time.
<NehaJ> exit