W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > January 2010

Minutes HTML-A11Y - 07 January 2010 at 16:00Z - Topic: ARIA integration, more

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:04:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4B461417.8050502@cfit.ie>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi y'all,

Here are the minutes from todays teleconf.

Apologies for any omissions/errors..

Cheers

Josh

W3C
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
07 Jan 2010

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
Regrets
    Laura, Stephane, Aurélien, Markku, Wendy
Chair
    MikeSmith
Scribe
    Joshue

Contents

    * Topics
         1. Actions Review <-
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
         2. Action Review
         3. reports from TF Subgroups (Canvas; Video; ...)
         4. Reports from Task force sub groups
         5. Video
         6. Actions Review <-
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
         7. ARIA integration followup from previous discussion <-
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-html-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary
         8. ARIA integration
         9. Review Bugs and keywords
        10. Priority / Severity level of HTML WG bugzilla bugs
        11. Priority Severity Level of Bugs
        12. Validation Tools
        13. New Business
        14. AOB
    * Summary of Action Items





<trackbot> Date: 07 January 2010

<gfreed> partial regrets: geoff f has to leave the call at 11:30.

<Marco_Ranon> probably P32 was me, Marco Ranon. i'm using skype

<Marco_Ranon> i'm on the phone but i ca't hear much

I'll scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Joshue
Actions Review <- http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
Action Review

MS: Lots over overdue actions

<MikeSmithX> action-7?

<trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Gregory Rosmaita to propose braille media type
(as opposed to simply tactile) or sub-type after consulting with
Braille-in-DAISY and others -- due 2010-01-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/7

MS: I don't see GJR on the call

<MikeSmithX> action-7 due 2010-01-15

<trackbot> ACTION-7 propose braille media type (as opposed to simply
tactile) or sub-type after consulting with Braille-in-DAISY and others
due date now 2010-01-15

<MikeSmithX> action-6?

<trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to address fragments versus
entire pages as alternatives with HTML WG members -- due 2010-01-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/6

MS: Rich, anything to report?

RS: We have to talk about this in the canvas WG

<MikeSmithX> action-6: Rich says they still need to address in Canvas TF

<trackbot> ACTION-6 address fragments versus entire pages as
alternatives with HTML WG members notes added

RS: We haven't addressed this yet

MS: Do you want to take another week?

RS: Two weeks please, I'll post to the HTML WG list

<MikeSmithX> action-6 due 2010-01-21

<trackbot> ACTION-6 address fragments versus entire pages as
alternatives with HTML WG members due date now 2010-01-21

<MikeSmithX> action-5?

<trackbot> ACTION-5 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to david Bolter to ask if
the use of contenteditable areas for representing rich text with caret
position in the shadow dom would be acceptable for HTML 5 and canvas --
due 2010-01-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/5

RS: I did discuss this with David, I will drop him a line. He was to
look into this with the Mozilla Team.

<MikeSmithX> action-5: Rich says he talked with davidb and waiting for
him to report back

<trackbot> ACTION-5 David Bolter to ask if the use of contenteditable
areas for representing rich text with caret position in the shadow dom
would be acceptable for HTML 5 and canvas notes added

<MikeSmithX> action-5 due 2010-01-21

<trackbot> ACTION-5 David Bolter to ask if the use of contenteditable
areas for representing rich text with caret position in the shadow dom
would be acceptable for HTML 5 and canvas due date now 2010-01-21

<MikeSmithX> action-4?

<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to get back with the
Mozilla team to ensure there are no issues with allowing standard HTML5
input controls in the shadow DOM -- due 2010-01-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/4

MS: The last one is also on Rich.

<MikeSmithX> action-4: Rich talked talked with davidb, will follow up
with him

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Get back with the Mozilla team to ensure there are
no issues with allowing standard HTML5 input controls in the shadow DOM
notes added

<MikeSmithX> action-4 due 2010-01-21

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Get back with the Mozilla team to ensure there are
no issues with allowing standard HTML5 input controls in the shadow DOM
due date now 2010-01-21

RS: I did talk to DavidB on that also. Am pinging him now. Another 2
weeks please.

<MikeSmithX> action-3?

<trackbot> ACTION-3 -- Cynthia Shelly to create revised summary proposal
for January 14th, 2010 -- due 2009-12-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/3

<MikeSmithX> action-3: Cynthia met with Wendy, on track for next week

<trackbot> ACTION-3 Create revised summary proposal for January 14th,
2010 notes added

CS: Mine is due next week. I spoke to Wendy about this and it is on track.

MS: Ok

<MikeSmithX> action-4 due 2010-01-14

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Get back with the Mozilla team to ensure there are
no issues with allowing standard HTML5 input controls in the shadow DOM
due date now 2010-01-14

MS: I will change the due date to the 14th Jan

<MikeSmithX> action-4 due 2010-01-21

<trackbot> ACTION-4 Get back with the Mozilla team to ensure there are
no issues with allowing standard HTML5 input controls in the shadow DOM
due date now 2010-01-21

<MikeSmithX> action-3 due 2010-01-14

<trackbot> ACTION-3 Create revised summary proposal for January 14th,
2010 due date now 2010-01-14

MS: Next one on GJR also

<MikeSmithX> action-02?

<trackbot> ACTION-2 -- Gregory Rosmaita to deliver draft of change
proposal for ARIA additions to HTML 5 by 2009-12-24 -- due 2009-12-24 --
OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/2

<MikeSmithX> action-2 due 2010-01-14

<trackbot> ACTION-2 Deliver draft of change proposal for ARIA additions
to HTML 5 by 2009-12-24 due date now 2010-01-14

MS: I will ask GJR on the list about this one

<MikeSmithX> action-1?

<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Cynthia Shelly to write overall approach HTML
support of ARIA -- due 2009-12-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/1

CS: I have done this

MS: Ok

<MikeSmithX> action-1: Cynthia sent to list

<trackbot> ACTION-1 Write overall approach HTML support of ARIA notes added

<MikeSmithX> close action-1

<trackbot> ACTION-1 Write overall approach HTML support of ARIA closed
reports from TF Subgroups (Canvas; Video; ...)
Reports from Task force sub groups

MS: First up <canvas>, Rich?

RS: We meet before the break, no real movement. Am setting up a call. We
are discussing the shadow DOM and content editable sections etc.
... Looking at rendering visual elements of the same components also.
... Looking at CSS3 media queries, and hooking up with David Singer.
Prob no issue adding additional properties etc but there should be an
alternative even i no absolute match.
... Looking at alternative content, mashups etc. Fragments vs source
objects a la <video> elements. Here you may go to an external service
and grab content.
... There are many APIs for merging content, the question is for a
fragment do we want to support them or have a seperate page (like in an
iframe)

RS; The source for media types is limited, for objects to be pulled in
and we need to make sure that we need a fragment - that will change spec

MS: Have you reached concensus, is there a bug?

RS: What is the process? Discuss on list or raise bug?
... If it is not going to change there is really no bug. I want to
discuss that first.

MS: Ok. we need actionable bugs, this needs to be clear.

RS: I will post to the HTML WG and Ian for his thoughts.

DS: I think that filling bugs is a good idea, otherwise we may be asking
the editor to do something prematurely.

RS: Do you want to talk to address this?

DS: We should discuss it first.

RS: What do people think about using fragments as alternative types etc?
... I want to get peoples thoughts.

MS: It sounds like <canvas> is moving along fine
... Dave can you give us a summary on <video>?
Video

DS: We should start on the wiki, not a lot to report right now..but work
on the wiki will be a good place to start.

MS: I'll put the URL into minutes later.
Actions Review <- http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
ARIA integration followup from previous discussion <-
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-html-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary
ARIA integration

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page

MS: The first call focussed on ARIA integration and getting the
conformance criteria agreed upon.
... So how much progress have we made? Steve?

SF: We are a standstill at the moment.
... Same as where we were before Xmas

MS: What do people think we can do to move this forward?

SF: Do it piecemeal and file bugs as we go.

MS: Ok
... Any objections?

CS: I have a suggestion, could be work on it during this call?

MS: Yes

SF: Can we send a bug to the list, discuss at meeting and then it would
be filed?

MS: Lets do that

SF: Bugs can be posted and brought in, discussed etc. Good way to get going.

MS: Good idea, we need to make this a priority. Lets do that.

SF: When we put a bug in that is rejected, does it go into issue
tracker? We don't want loads of bugs but issues about ARIA that need to
be addressed?
... So a bug that is rejected gets escalated to the issue tracker.

MS: Yes, right.

CS: Are we still not deciding what the categories are?

SF: We can talk it

CS: The glaring issues etc

SF: Yes

MS: Ok, thats all on that.

<MikeSmithX>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?field-1-0-0=keywords&keywords=a11y&query_format=advanced&remaction=&type-1-0-0=anywords&value-1-0-0=a11y&order=bugs.bug_id&query_based_on=
Review Bugs and keywords

<MikeSmithX>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?field-1-0-0=keywords&keywords=a11y&query_format=advanced&remaction=&type-1-0-0=anywords&value-1-0-0=a11y&order=bugs.bug_id&query_based_on=

<Laura> Bug Collection, Development, Status and Resolution:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs

MS: These are the bugs that are marked with the numeronym a11y
... Some resolved, fixed etc
... I will look at the ones that are not marked with task force keywords
... In the interest of looking at the most recent..

<MikeSmithX> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8674

MS; [To all] Please look through the list, if you want to discuss on the
call get in queue

MS: Hixie has rejected this one, and made a suggestion.

<discussion on <menu> and bug>

SF: I am confused about comment - breaking backwards compat?

MS: Yeah, me 2
... Do we want to add the task force keyword to this?
... Yes, no?

SF: Maybe Rich could answer this?

CS: Implementors I talk to will not want to base their APIs on nesting.

SF: Right

JS: The proposed solution may not be adequate

MS: I will add the keyword, if new info comes along etc I will add to
the bug
... Otherwise we will consider escalating.

CS: Henny can you talk to Opera?

HS: Yes

<Laura> Escalating a Bug to an Issue:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Escalating_a_Bug_to_an_Issue

<MikeSmithX> ACTION: Cynthia to follow up with IE team about whether
implementers are willing to use parent/child/nesting relationships could
be used in mappings logic [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Follow up with IE team about whether
implementers are willing to use parent/child/nesting relationships could
be used in mappings logic [on Cynthia Shelly - due 2010-01-14].

MS: I won't go thru all these now, does anyone have high priority bugs
they want to talk about on this call?

<silence>

MS: What about 8671?

<MikeSmithX> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8671

MS: Making the @label required?
... It is a significant change to the spec..

CS: Do we need a consensus on what we need to talk about?

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to volunteer to take an action item
to make a proposal for which bugs we should take on, for review at next
meeting

<MikeSmithX> ack

MC: I volunteer to take an action for the bugs we should track,

I'll take an action

<MikeSmithX> ACTION: Cooper to make a proposal for which bugs we should
take on, for review at next meeting [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Make a proposal for which bugs we should
take on, for review at next meeting [on Michael Cooper - due 2010-01-14].

SF: Can we denote if we don't want to discuss them
... There is a duplication maybe?

MS: Yes

MC: I can use bugzilla

DS: Comments would be best, to say this has or hasn't been discussed.

MC: We should remove the TF keyword..to reduce noise etc

MS: Yes, thats a good idea
... Anything else that needs attention?

DS: Gez has been entering a lot of bugs, I am concerned about say Media
a11y issue, and single pixel issues but maybe we miss the big picture?

JOC: Good point David, I agree

MC: We can use bugzilla for various groupings and create relationships
between bugs.

DS: There is a big picture that needs to be developed.

JS: What Gez is doing, started at TPAC. There may have been a
misunderstanding as to how much work needed to be done, so we wanted to
identify issues. Item by item and pixel by pixel may not be the best
approach, but we just need to identify what needs to be worked on.

<dsinger> Ok

JS: Keywords would provide a working mechanism, to get them on the table
as such.
Priority / Severity level of HTML WG bugzilla bugs
Priority Severity Level of Bugs

MS: I spoke with MC and JS about this, the chairs perspective is that
they dont pay much attention to the Priority levels etc.
... They have no significance..Hixie has changed some of the bugs - the
editors change them, others with access can change them- not really an
issue for the WG or the a11y TF. Thoughts?

JS: Again, a misunderstanding. The advice would be to leave it at default.

MS: Yes
Validation Tools

MS: We will talk about this next week.
New Business
AOB

MS: ?
... Ok, next meeting. Next week, same time.
... Volunteers for scribe next week?

SF: I'll try

<dsinger> Bye
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Cooper to make a proposal for which bugs we should take
on, for review at next meeting [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Cynthia to follow up with IE team about whether
implementers are willing to use parent/child/nesting relationships could
be used in mappings logic [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 17:04:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:41:58 GMT