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

Re: Minutes: November 23: HTML Accessibility Bug Triage Sub-Team

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:45:07 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKrsQszkvz5o9ZE8Aydu8g6BiLs0bGTFWLv=Y-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
This is a very good discussion actually and overview of what are text
alternatives and of what kind.
I look forward to the table!
Cheers,
Silvia.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com> wrote:
> Minutes:
>    http://www.w3.org/2010/11/23-a11y-bugs-minutes.html
>
> Agenda:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0229.html
>
> ====
>
> - DRAFT -
>
> HTML Accessibility Bug-Triage
> 23 Nov 2010
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
>    Marco_Ranon, Martin_Kliehm, Michael_Cooper
> Regrets
>    Laura_Carlson
> Chair
>    Martin_Kliehm
> Scribe
>    Michael_Cooper, Martin_Kliehm
>
> Contents
>
> * Topics
>     1. Find scribe
>     2. Accessible fallback mechanisms for embedded content
>     3. Sifting of NEW bugs
>     4. Assign homework for next week
> * Summary of Action Items
>
>
> TOPIC: Accessible fallback mechanisms for embedded content
>
> <MichaelC> Discussion of uses cases
>
> <MichaelC> considered the following:
>
> <MichaelC> Short text alternative can substitute for the object, sometimes
> on its own and sometimes complemented by an additional "long text
> alternative". Normally, short text alternatives aren't provided if direct
> accessibility is possible, but it may still be used if direct accessibility
> for whatever reason isn't enabled (e.g., canvas makes a simple image and
> there is no need to enable full shadow...
>
> <MichaelC> ...DOM support).
>
> <MichaelC> Long text alternative can substitute for the object, fairly
> completely. Normally it complements a short text alternative but in the case
> of transcripts may stand on its own.
>
> <MichaelC> Label identifies the object and tells the user if they want to go
> into it more. This has both non-accessibility and accessibility use cases.
> Frequently confounded with short text alternatives, it's a distinct use case
> and optimally should have a different implementation. Generally, if a label
> is provided, a short text alternative would be redundant and is not
> separately required.
>
> <MichaelC> Summary is more than a short text alternative, but not the
> complete replacement that a long text alternative should be. Like a label,
> it may help a user decide whether to explore more, or may be a sufficient
> overview of the object in many cases.
>
> <MichaelC> Advisory / tooltip is a kind of text label that is usually
> displayed as a tooltip. Although frequently taken from short text
> alternatives or captions, this is not an accessibility use case. It is in
> the table to show that it is a distinct use case and should not be
> confounded with other accessibility fallbacks.
>
> <MichaelC> Idiosyncratic direct accessibility means the object content
> itself provides ways to make it accessible, e.g., caption formats in video,
> features of SVG, the shadow DOM of canvas, etc. Generally, if a format
> supports direct accessibility it may still benefit from a label, but should
> not require a short or long text alternative. However, some objects may not
> enable the direct accessibility and...
>
> <MichaelC> ...still require external text alternatives, such as a short text
> alternative for a simple image implemented with canvas, or a transcript
> (i.e., long text alternative) for an audio. Note that for embed and object,
> this depends on features of the loaded content language, so these elements
> may or may not require separate fallbacks within the HTML.
>
> <MichaelC> Specify none needed is for formats that need to be able to
> indicate that they are "presentational" and no accessibility fallback is
> needed.
>
> <MichaelC> discussed which of these use cases apply to which types of
> embedded content
>
> <MichaelC> ACTION: Michael to send his embedded content analysis to the task
> force list [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/23-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action01]
>
>
> TOPIC: Sifting of NEW bugs
>
> <MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10660
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10660
>
> <MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11140
>
> <MichaelC> related to the above
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11199
>
> <kliehm> Bug triage sub-team thinks this is not a HTML A11Y TF priority. The
> primary
>
> <kliehm> accessibility need is to provide headings at all; providing them in
> an outline
>
> <kliehm> or clearly associated with landmarks is helpful but only if
> implemented
>
> <kliehm> consistently. Further, HTML 5 provides various ways to achieve this
> (though
>
> <kliehm> none of them are mandatory). There could be some value in looking
> more closely
>
> <kliehm> at section types aka landmarks in HTML.next, but don't think we
> should in the
>
> <kliehm> HTML 5 timeframe. Furthermore, the issue is more with user agent
> presentation
>
> <kliehm> existing heading features than with the HTML spec itself.
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11207
>
> <kliehm> Bug triage sub-team think this is a HTML A11Y TF priority, is
> already in active discussion with the media sub-group.
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11238
>
> <kliehm> Adding a11yTF keyword
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11242
>
> <MichaelC> Bug triage sub-team agrees this is an A11Y TF priority. However,
> it is clear this will come back as needsinfo in its current state. Assigning
> to Rich to address within the canvas sub-team and provide the needed info.
> Assign to Ian when complete.
>
> <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11279
>
> <MichaelC> Bug triage sub-team doesn't think this is a A11Y TF priority.
> It's not an HTML feature, just a spec clarity issue. Our understanding is
> there is a specific reason for the phrasing approach, and doesn't need task
> force involvement.
> Assign homework for next week
>
> <kliehm> Homework for next week: shepherding Michael's post regarding
> embedded content to the list.
>
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: Michael to send his embedded content analysis to the task
> force list [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/23-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action01]
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 19:46:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:24 GMT