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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:35:06 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001071035k3995faegcfe79cbdce52760d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
BTW: I have standing regrets for the meeting, since it takes place in
the middle of the night for me.

I haven't been able to focus on video a11y work in the last month, but
intend to work a bit on the wiki, go through the new video-related
a11y bugs that have been registered on public-html, reply to some of
the threads that are still open from the end of last year in
particular with some new suggestions from Opera, and generally move
video a11y (in particular captions, subtitles, and audio descriptions)
forward in the next month.

We will have a open video software developers meeting next week in New
Zealand with several Firefox video developers attending (see
http://www.foms-workshop.org/foms2010/) and a discussion on video a11y
is definitely going to happen.

Also, I would like to point out that the W3C Media Fragments Working
Group has created a new specification at the end of December which is
now a first public discussion draft, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/, so people are encouraged to give
feedback.

Best Regards,
Silvia.


On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
> 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 18:36:01 GMT

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