- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:17:08 +0100
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <20100429171440.M55895@hicom.net>
aloha!
minutes from the 29 April 2010 HTML A11y TF teleconference are available
as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-irc
and as plain text following this announcement -- please log any errors,
omissions, mis-attributions, and/or clarifications by replying-to this
announcement on-list...
thanks to John Foliot for scribing, gregory.
_________________________________________________________
W3C
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
29 Apr 2010
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0308.html
See also: IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
John_Foliot, Eric, Janina, Michael_Cooper, kliehm,
Gregory_Rosmaita, Jim_Allan, Janina_Sajka, Marco, Kelly_Ford,
Sean_Hayes, Paul_Cotton, Rich, Ben, Cynthia_Shelly,
Steve_Faulkner, Geoff_Freed, David_Bolter
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Sylvia_Pfeiffer, Denis_Boudreau
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
John_Foliot
Contents
* Topics
1. Action Item Reviews
2. Canvas Subgroup Update
3. Media Subgroup
4. Summary Proposal
5. CfC on the Zero Edits Resolution
6. Issues 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97
7. Sub-Group Reports
8. Missing @alt
9. Deadlines for TF Deliverables
10. MCooper's Bug Review
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2010
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka
<janina> agenda: this
<JF> scribe = jf
<oedipus> scribe: John_Foliot
<oedipus> scribenick: JF
Action Item Reviews
JS: tweak to agenda - review of open issues - UI issues
action item review
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item
action 25 - Steve F
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 25
will leave open - steve not on call
<kliehm> ACTION-25?
<trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Steve Faulkner to post notice to a11y TF
about http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ and how to make
comments -- due 2010-04-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/25
will re-visit Issue26 later in the call
subteams: Canvas
Canvas Subgroup Update
RS: awaiting responses - nothing heard over the last 2 weeks
... will 'shake the tree' on outstanding Canvas issues this week
... affecting deadline - needs more comments
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010AprJun/0003.html
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010AprJun/att-0003/2dcontext10-Apr-11.html
RS: concern of exposing this level of API
... Caret issues still needs resolution
... proposal exists - question is how does this get mapped to A11y
API/platform
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
Media Subgroup
JF: had lenghthy but productive call yesterday; touched on
Javascript API for Text Associations; talked about timestamp format;
don't have concise and formal rfequirements stateement -- spread
over multiple docs, JF has action item to distill into something
clear and cohesive
... playing catch-up; will submit document to TF when finished so
can base future work
... discussed media requirments versus feature reqs
... need to address a11y in <video> and <audio> - urgency as is
being implemented without a11y
... media in HTML5 - introduces multiple layers of complexity
... short term needs and longer term needs and reqs; roadmap for
media work; very productive call; tough on attendees -- australians
up early, europeans up late
... time was 3PM Vancouver time; workable -- will have series of
calls over next few weeks;
... will perhaps later move to every-other-week
SF: WHAT WG stuff -- where does that fit into what is being done in
media subgroup
JF: underscores sense of urgency; implementation outside of our
control - have to focus on what is being currently implemented; need
to re-review WHAT WG req documents -- seems to be a pretty good
start but have to check to see if included everything; will consider
and use in collating document
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/28-html-a11y-minutes.html
JF: encourge TF members to review the WHAT WG materials
Summary Proposal
JS: Wendy not on call
JS: propose we defer on this
CfC on the Zero Edits Resolution
Issues 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97
JS: one vote recorded against
... no-one else has commented
cyns: silence equals agreement?
JS: essentially, yes
Sub-Group Reports
JS: suggestion is to vote on the call
... not required to respond to the email - email offered the
opportunity to register your voice
MC: essentially silence DOES equal concurance
... removes the ability to have an objection later down the road
<oedipus> GJR does not object to closing CfC for issues 98, 91, 93,
95, 96, 97
<janina> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the zero-edit
change proposal at
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements
We note this proposal closely tracks our previously submitted
recommendation
<janina> ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95
hidden,
<janina> ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter at:
<janina>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1086.htm
l
JS: per request of group from last week, that we come up with a
formal language here
... JS is there discussion? Is there opposition?
... declare that we accept this, and JS will formally forward this
to the WG Chairs
Missing @alt
JS: almost closed this last week, lacked formal language
... rectivated discussion on list this week
... 2 comments emerged
<richardschwerdtfe> need to drop off
JS: introduction of a "missing" atribute
... not sure if we want to further perfect the original proposal
... do we need to re-open?
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JF: responded late this morning before call -- discussing 2 issues
on list - 1 is introduction of new attribute that is indicator that
author explicitly declined to use alt text; second is crowd-sourcing
or metadata mining as repair -- that is going back down the image
hueristics issue which we voted down; need to de-link 2 issues;
support specific indicator for missing @alt - indicates author
provided opportunity to provide @alt text and did not; crowd-so
valid
JF: approved matt's statement on Issue 66 to strike OCR from text --
to me, crowd-sourcing and data-mining are similar
JS: personal statement (not wearing chair's hat) -- may have
negative copyright implications - should stay clear of that; if not
in spec, doesn't mean can't happen -- putting in spec gives far more
credence than we are in position to accept
KF: personally, agree with JS 100% -- dangerous thing to do
<inserted> scribenick: JF
JS: JS - anyone wishing to speak in favor of crowd-sourcing?
Cyns: adding it to UAAG might be a good idea, but not the spec
GJR: it could be added to SteveF's guidance document
JS: appears consensus of call that crowdsourcing not be included in
the spec
... JS leaves open the question what to do with the 'Flickr' problem
GJR: would like to use SteveF's document to point out how
crowd sourcing might work with a tool such as the w3c open source
tool RDFPic
JS: a "missing' attribute would not be objected to, but we leave to
the HTML WG to decide
... not sure if it is important to hold up consensus of current
proposal
... appears that we have a good recommendation
Cyns: perhaps vote on the existing proposal, and suggest a sperate
Change Proposal for any new attribute
... i.e. @missing or equiv
JS: I believe that this might be the better way forward
<oedipus_>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0332.html
SF: agrees that this kind of guidance could go into the guidance
document he is working on
GJR: yes, could add the metadata stuff he floated on the list to
document steve is working on as well
<oedipus_>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0307.html
JS: steve's document will include both practical guidance and a look
at future possibilities
GJR: will contribute proposed Appendix text for SteveF's textual
alternatives "module"
<oedipus_> ACTION: Gregory - prepare text for SteveF's guidance
document about future of data-mining using RDFPic methodology
outlined in post to list [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - - prepare text for SteveF's guidance
document about future of data-mining using RDFPic methodology
outlined in post to list [on Gregory Rosmaita - due 2010-05-06].
<oedipus_> plus 1 to approval now with addendum later
<janina> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the change
proposal at
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
to implement WAI Consensus Guidance that a missing text
alternative should be an error in conformance checkers. We expect the error
text will reference additional guidance on text alternatives in WCAG
support materials.
proposal from cyns is to vote on previous/existing alt text
proposal, and ask Laura et al to work on @missing or equiv
separately
<oedipus> plus 1 to approval now with addendum later
JS: any discussion? any objections on adoption of the Change
Propsoal?
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
<inserted> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the change
proposal at
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
to implement WAI Consensus Guidance that a missing text alternative
should be an error in conformance checkers. We expect the error text
will reference additional guidance on text alternatives in WCAG
support materials.
<inserted> ScribeNick: JF
accepted
Deadlines
JS: not just the a11y TF being put under pressure
... HTML WG Chairs are pushing all TFs and groups
... heading towards a Last Call
... deadlines can be positive - they force decisions - no need to
continue talking
... and highlights real open issues
... as long as we are reasonable in moving forward
... agree to work with deadlines, as long as we remain in control
... TF needs to start thinking seriously about deadlines
... example - media is still too wide open, however canvas is well
along and finding a deadline for that might be easier
GJR: one thing to ask the WG is to remember that we are replacing
some things that have been remove - we are being asked to
re-engineer some things, and that takes time
JS: aware that some old battles appear to be being re-fought
Deadlines for TF Deliverables
JS: suggesting late May for Canvas resolution (20th or 27th)
... Wendy not on call to discuss Summary, but Proposal exist to
re-install @summary as found in HTML4 to act as a place holder
... to remove 'pressure' for now, with understanding that we are
working on a more comprehensive solution
Cyns original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why
she went back to it originally
PC: as a result to that significant feedback, Cyns went back to the
drawing board, which is why Proposal B emerged - in another
direction
Cyns: Proposal B doesn't seem to be any less controversial than the
orignal propsoal
... if we can get a position to re-instate the orignal @summary,
that would buy time
... but don't feel that this will move forward based upon previous
exchanges
PC: good question - if there was a bug that stated re-instate HTML4
accessibility issue (@summary) then that might work - asking for
more guidance
might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us
amuch actual guidance
Cyns: Cyns - what that would give us is taht we could stop arguing
about it, and focus on real engineering work (canvas , ARIA
mappings, etc.) - allows us to focus engineering resources on the
hard bits
not on the emotional battles that many consider to be old news
+ 1 greg
<oedipus> GJR believes first question to be answered vis a vis
summary is: attribute or element
JS: Wendy's work is on improving table analysis to reduce the need
for a summary mechanism
SF: might be seen as a backwards step
... won't move issue forward
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that we still have competing
summary proposals
Cyns: *if* we could do this just for summary, might find reception
KF: agrees with most of what cyns said, however if should not
propose something predicated upon something that may or may not
happen in the future
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Summary
Cyns: put back HTML4 text, work will continue, it may or may not be
fruitful replacing some of the use-cases of summary
GJR: points out we have competing proposals summary as attribute
versus summary as an element
... suggest we decide which thing it should be: attribute or element
... gives us a clear path on whether we continue with the HTML4
perspective or as a new work effort
Cyns: would like to maintain status quo, only because it works today
- use as a deffering move
... then address from an engineering issue down the road
JS: is there an objection here?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Summary#Proposals
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/summary_element
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/tableInfoProposal
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/tableSummaryProposal
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/SummaryAttribute20100222
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Details_element_as_a_replacement_for_summary_attribute,_Feb_15,_2010
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Summary_Change_Proposal_Nov_18,_2009
JS: We have a consensus on direction - JS and Cyns will work on
language for a Recommendation for next week to formally address this
for next week to formally address
JS: HTML to ARIA mapping meetings on Tuesdays 3:00 PM Boston time
discussions
JS: other interested parties invited to participate
... we appear to have real action and next steps to all existing
items
MCooper's Bug Review
Action26 on Michael - remaining UI bugs
<MichaelC> Discussion on open bugs
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0283.html
MC: reviewed open bugs, and is 'stuck' because bugs discuss mor
about what Use Agents should do
... agrees that something should be said, but not sure if the spec
is the right place to say it
... 2 response today
... Laura and Ian so far
<oedipus> cooper's bug post:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0333.html
<oedipus> laura's reply:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0285.html
<oedipus> hixie's reply:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0322.html
<oedipus> hixie: "If there are UI-specific requirements in the spec,
please file bugs. In most cases, those are mistakes. (There's a few
special cases where I have included UI requirements; those are
generally either for accessibility or security reasons, and even
those should generally only be "SHOULD"-level requirements.)"
MC: would like to propose to take Ian's interpretation - these are
User Agent issues - and proposes to close them
... they should not be spec bugs
... they are interface issues + we have other issues we are working
on
Cyns: what to do if we disagree
?
<oedipus> hixie: "The distinction is between what is UI-agnostic UA
behaviour and what is UI-specific UA behaviour."
SF: does this take into account things like Drag and Drop?
agrees that they should perhaps not be spec'ed, but they need to be
referenced to guidance, etc.
MC: 1 criteria to use is to understand expected UI behavior
ie in Drag and Drop - not sure that it is complete enough to be
accessible
having gone through the exercise, can see that this might be
Cyns: not comfortable with Ian's blanket assertion that this doesn't
apply to the spec
JS: next steps?
MC: with some of the bugs, it is clear what to do. those that are
unclear to be put out and considered case-by-case
Cyns would prefer that
+1 from SF, and myself
JS: thanks all
[ADJOURNED]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Gregory - prepare text for SteveF's guidance document
about future of data-mining using RDFPic methodology outlined in
post to list [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 17:17:40 UTC