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

{minutes} HTML5-A11y TF call 2010-07-15

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025a01cb2468$eb7d5790$c27806b0$@edu>
The minutes of the Jul 15 HTML-A11y TF Weekly teleconference are available
below and at:

http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-minutes.html

 

******************* 

 

  [1]W3C

 

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

 

                               - DRAFT -

 

             HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

 

15 Jul 2010

 

   See also: [2]IRC log

 

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-irc

 

Attendees

 

   Present

          Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Janina, Michael_Cooper, kliehm,

          MikeSmith, Ben_Caldwell, Gregory_Rosmaita, Rich, paulc,

          MikeSmithX

 

   Regrets

          Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, Kenny_Johar, Denis_Boudreau

 

   Chair

          Janina_Sajka

 

   Scribe

          John_Foliot

 

Contents

 

     * [3]Topics

         1. [4]SubTeam Reports

         2. [5]TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning

         3. [6]TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with

            the other

         4. [7]Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal

     * [8]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________

 

   <trackbot> Date: 15 July 2010

 

   <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

 

   <janina> agenda: this

 

   <inserted> scribe: John_Foliot

 

   <inserted> scribenick: JF

 

   <scribe> JF

 

   <paulc> I am still booting up and will join by phone ASAP.

 

   Actions Review Mike C: there is some Canvas Actions what shouel we

   do?

 

   Janina - await Steve F & Rich S to join the call

 

   Action 22

 

   <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

 

   <MichaelC> action-22 due 1 Nov

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-22 Organize joint discussion of testing task force

   and html a11y task force due date now 1 Nov

 

   Advance to Nov 1 and turn into Tech Pleneray issue

 

   Action-44

 

   Mike C: is this an actual action item, or just a reminder

 

   ?

 

   <MichaelC> close action-44

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-44 - monitor status of @alt in HTML5 spec; when

   SteveF's Alt Guidance is published, ensure that what is in SteveF's

   note supersedes or corrects HTML5 verbiage; propose changes to HTML5

   based on SteveF's alt doc closed

 

   shouold we close it as an action?

 

   agreed

 

   ACTION-46

 

   <MichaelC> close action-46

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-46 Work with WAI UAWG to find home for "image

   analysis heuristics" text from HTML5 spec (HTML WG issue 66) closed

 

   2

 

   Steve F has a number of actions assigned - will wait for him to join

   us or defer

 

   3 open actions re: Canvas

 

   <MichaelC> close action-12

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-12 Ensure there is a dependency between the HTML5

   specification and the HTML 5 2D Context specification to ensure that

   the author has the ability to set the visible focus, for <canvas>,

   to ensure that a magnifier may follow the visual focus. This would

   be driven by the shadow DOM. closed

 

   Rich: is this group just handling HTML, or is it looking at media

   queries, etc.?

 

   Greg: believes it should be in the PFWG

 

   we should discuss coordination with them

 

   RichL HTML spec suggests do whateve the media queries says

 

   Eric: would like to be involved in that effort as well

 

   <MichaelC> close action-17

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for

   alternative content selection closed

 

   Actions section completed

 

   <MichaelC> action-17: migrated to PF ACTION-692

   [9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/692

 

      [9] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/692

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for

   alternative content selection notes added

 

   <MichaelC> close action-19

 

   <trackbot> ACTION-19 Work with the Canvas API subteam to include and

   API for caret tracking that drive magnfication closed

 

SubTeam Reports

 

   <oedipus> rich, there was a thread on changing the media group

   tactile to have 2 media types tactual (non-natural language based

   tactile images) and braille (natural language based tactile output)

   -- gottfried (i think) and i had an exchange on it and janina liked

   the idea but thought the verbiage was too confusing -- will

   follow-up via email

 

   <oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

 

   JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements

   into technical requirements

   ... worked thorugh 50% of requirements

   ... encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer

   feedback and comments as things progress

   ... need to have technical requirements and user requirements stable

   enough to advance to the HTML WG next week -- perhaps 10 days left

   before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain

 

   <inserted> scribenick: JF

 

   Thanks to Greg

 

   Steve F on ARIA mappings

 

   not much has happened in the past week

 

   have already provided a change proposal and a bug

 

   HTML chairs have requested bug be expedited

 

   Janina: wants to know about the change Proposal

 

   now that we have a bug, se should now have an agenda item to vote a

   resolution to advance the change proposal

 

   spec text exists, but what is need is feedback and consensus around

   the change proposal

 

   SteveF asking about getting a poll around this

 

   Janina: appears process is sticking point - work is ready

 

   can we bring this work to the group for next week?

 

   SteveF: what does this entail?

 

   Janina: should we run a survey on this?

 

   SteveF: makes it a more formal 'support' from the TF

 

   hopefully people will read the proposal before voting - not yet had

   any response on the draft change propsal

 

   SteveF: suggests overall question: after reviewing the changes, do

   you support them?

 

   are there more than one question to be asked here?

 

   Rich: everything is in the proposal, (needs some minor edits)

 

   SteveF: we want people to review the text we choose to replace,

   based upon the proposal

 

   PaulC: not sure if a survey is the best forum for that

   question/decision

 

   <oedipus> strong plus 1 to CfC

 

   likely could happen via emails

 

   <oedipus> make TF members read the text before commenting

 

   Rich: reason for suggesting a poll is that if people have an issue

   with a certain section they could highlight

 

   Janina: this could be highly granular quickly

 

   SteveF: the main thrust is that the current starting point is whlely

   unsuitable in the current spec

 

   what we don't want to get into is a point-by-point comparrison

 

   but rather seeks an alternative starting point

 

   it goes to philosphy more than actual text

 

   Do we support an approach that suggests that ARIA does not introduce

   a confromance issue

 

   Janina: lets keep it simple

 

   SteveF: we have already put it out for comment, thinks a Chair

   should ask for 'closure'

 

   Janina: Discussion on remaining deliverables and time-lines

 

TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning

 

   talking about TPAC as a deadline

 

   some discussion that this might slip slightly

 

   but we are targetting to be comple in this calendar year

 

   ARIA, drag-n-drop...

 

   does anyone think that DnD have issues that will stall beyond year

   end

 

   the 1 or 2 others are media a11y

 

   and the other is "accesskey"

 

   perhaps looking at a name-change

 

   to access-command

 

   what PF will be forwarding is a set of user requirements

 

   <oedipus> GJR notes that these are set of requirements for

   satisfying navigational requirements, not on specific attributes or

   elements -- those will be decided upon by TF

 

   with no recommendation on *how* it is to be met

 

   expect work to start on that within the week

 

   anyone have any thoughts on what work will entail? anyone see a

   reason why this cannot be completed by end of October?

 

   Greg: have started to take what is in HTML5 re: accesskey to see

   what (if anything) is lacking

 

   will report back to Tf

 

   looking at accesskey, tabindex and command

 

   this is what is in, this is what is out, and can it (they) meet the

   requirements

 

   Greg: I beleive we can get this done and fixed

 

   SteveF: what happens with the whole text alternatives issue

 

   Janina: that is still on the agenda

 

   while we still have deliverables, the only one we are not sure we

   can deliver in time for TPAC is the media issue

 

   everything else appears on target

 

   MikeS: want to mention about DragnDrop that we have seen some

   feedback

 

   <Zakim> MikeSmithX, you wanted to note that we got feedback from Gez

   on drag-and-drop

   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/005

   6.html

 

     [10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0056.html

 

   Janina: Task Force at TPAC - hoping to get this group together then

   and there

 

   depends on our agenda at that point

 

   <oedipus> i/SubTeam reports/TOPIC: SubTeam Reports/

 

   Next: CAPTCHA survey

 

   Janina: this has been discussed, and this might be resolving itself

   through changes in the spec

 

   Greg: I think we need to keep an eye on this, and if it is out of

   the next 2 publications, we can rest easy

 

   keep in our back pocket

 

TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with the other

 

   Discussion now: we as TF need to become a little more formal about

   our recommendations to the WG

 

   we have already sent a number up, and are in process at the WG

 

   encourage all to continue to work on these issues at the higher WG

   level

 

   if there is a survey we can continue to particpate

 

   Janina: we should discuss how to track these proposals now

 

   we have a responsibility to follow through and tracking our

   recommendations

 

   is the wiki sufficient to track these issues?

 

   SteveF: Laura has been asking about some ARIA attributes and

   feedback

 

   on the list, with little feedback outside of SteveF

 

   <oedipus> SteveF post "rationale for role=presentation"

   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/005

   9.html

 

     [11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0059.html

 

   SteveF thinks however that ARIA-labeledby is not appropriate

 

   and provided his rationale

 

   laura is still looking for other rationales as this is/was a request

   from the chairs

 

   correction: aria-label is under question, not labeledby

 

   Greg: the text in the spec is not in line with discussion. believes

   that it needs to be naked attributes without the aria prefix

 

   JF: why?

 

   Greg: believes there are a number of aria properties should be

   non-prefixed in the spec

 

   <oedipus> JF: saying primary reason to remove prefix is

   ease-of-authoring? no matter what we call is secondary to

   functionality needed

 

   <oedipus> JF: have aria deployed today -- in effect, abandoning

   something trying to establish

 

   <oedipus> JF: could introduce confusion

 

   <oedipus> JF: GJR saying change name of attribute -- but already

   have implementation into new name with aria- prefix

 

   <oedipus> JF: less author confusion with aria- prefix

 

   <oedipus> JF: get GJR's rationale, but flip side of coin is need to

   say "don't forget to do these things" and here is how

 

   <oedipus> JF: worried that opening a huge new can of worms -- aria-

   prefix allows us to advance them all forward -- don't want to go

   down a rathole

 

   <oedipus> JS: if make change, have to pull back rec and go with

   another one - could be politically problematic

 

   <eric_carlson> +1 !

 

   SteveF: agrees with JF

 

   <oedipus> SF: advises gregory to bring up in TF

 

   What material changes with the name change?

 

   Greg: aria-* carries a weight with it. what does it mean to the

   average developer

 

   we need to ensure that things remain backward compatable

 

   if @alt is going to be deprecated or made obsolete then we need to

   ensure native attributes

 

   SteveF: nobody is suggesting to make ALT obsolete, but rather we want

   to provide additional means of achieving the end goal

 

   it's about increased choice, not change

 

   Greg: believes that the WG has been putting up barriers for ARIA

   adoption, and so wants things to be modular

 

   Janina: if we send a rec forward, and then decide later that it is

   not correct, we lose cred

 

   Janina: this group voted out the ALT text issue a few weeks back

 

   <oedipus> GJR also doesn't want ARIA "frozen" at 1.0 in HTML5

 

   there was a rationale for labeled a few weeks back

 

   SteveF: Laura keeps asking for that rationale, and it has not come

   forward

   ... it is more than just a name-change, it is about introducing

   something new to HTML5

 

   Greg: feels that use of ARIA in HTML5 that is not native is a kludge

 

   SteveF: user agents can be encouraged to provide equiv.

   functionality to user as well

 

   Janina: must cut this short as it is the top of hour. Does anyone

   else want to re-visit this guidance?

 

   suggest moving this discussion onto the list for further follow-up

 

   Suggests making follow-ups on status of recommendations as part of

   weekly agenda - seems to have met approval

 

Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal

 

   final item - how to follow up on outstanding open bugs

 

   Mike C and Laura logical bug shepherds, but looking for other

   volunteers

 

Summary of Action Items

 

   [End of minutes]

 
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 21:59:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:13 GMT