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

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force teleconference 2010-09-30 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:29:43 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100930162829.M5788@hicom.net>
aloha!

minutes from the 30 september 2010 HTML Accessibility Task Force 
weekly teleconference are available as hypertext at:

http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-minutes.html

as an IRC log at:

http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-irc

and as plain text following my signature -- as usual, please log
any corrections, comments, clarifications, mis-attributions and
the like by replying-to this announcement on list...

major thanks to john foliot for performing the bulk of the scribing

gregory.

    _________________________________________________________

                             - DRAFT -

            HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

30 Sep 2010

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0677.html

  See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-irc

Attendees

  Present
         Cynthia_Shelly, Everett_Zufelt, Gregory_Rosmaita, Jeanne,
         John_Foliot, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Rich, Sean_Hayes,
         [Microsoft], kliehm

  Regrets
         Marco_Ranon, Laura_Carlson, Kenny_Johar, Sylvia_Pfieffer,
         Joshue_O'Connor, Janina_Sajka

  Chair
         Mike_Smith

  Scribe
         JF, oedipus,

Contents

    * Topics
        1. Keyboard access requirements
        2. Drag and Drop
        3. sub-team reports
        4. Canvas
    * Summary of Action Items
    _________________________________________________________

  <trackbot> Date: 30 September 2010

  <MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

  <trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

  <trackbot> Date: 30 September 2010

  <JF> scribing to be shared by JF and GJR

  <oedipus> everett,
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/Teleconference_cheat_sheet

Keyboard access requirements

  <oedipus>
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/pf_requirements_revision

  <inserted> scribenick: JF

  GR: wiki page is revision of requirements based on work from UAAG
  and tohers

  <MikeSmith> oedipus, go ahead

  to ensure that all requirements are met in html5

  there are 9 requirements... (GJR having computer issues)

  MS: while we wait for Greg, notices that there are some new bugs
  that have been filed on the topic of accesskeys

  GJR: have been using the term of access command as it is more
  general than accesskey

  need to ensure from W

  AI perspective that the 9 requirements are met in html5

  GJR listing the 9 requirements but JF unable to type that quickly -
  will ensure all 9 reqs are added to the transcript

  9 reqs are listed at the wiki:
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/pf_requirements_revision

  MS: are there any outstanding bugs that need to be filed against
  this?

  GJR: need to verify that UAAG are comfortable too.

  MS: asking Jeanne S about UAAG's position

  JS: seems like the wiki page is complete

  MS: notes wiki has been updated recently

  GJR: split out as seperate issues, but also have requirments for
  event handler requiremetns

  alos on the wiki

  GJR: they are split of into a seperate page

  <MikeSmith>
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/event_handler_requirements

  GJR - these come from the reqs in UAAG 2.0 - need to stress these
  requriements

  MS: notes that these are not things to expect to be addressed by
  HTML5 per-se, as it does not mandate UI requirements
  ... falls outside of the scope of HTML5 spec - browser chrome issue

  GJR: one of the reasons why these were split out

  MS: need to ensure that we have bugs recorded in bugzilla to ensure
  that issues are tracked
  ... don't need full consensus from this group, but just to get them
  into the bugtracker

  GJR: wondering if these should be submitted as individual bugs?

  MS: likely yes, specificity will be important
  ... Chairs position is that if bugs are logged before Oct. 1 that
  show that we want to register a certain change as a pre-last call
  note

  specific changes we want to see, then file now

  then if further bugs are filed after Oct. 1 s
  clarrifications/followups after Oct. 1 then we are good to go

  <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if bugs filed as follow-up after
  1 october 2010 considered LC bugs?

  GJR: so if we cite precious bugs after Oct. 1, then we are "safe"
  and this is acceptable

  MS: are we in agreement with this requirements?

  seems there is no dissent

  follow up with Greg if anyone has comments of additions to the main
  bugs that Greg will be filing

  MS: notes there are other bugs to discuss today

  thanks

  <oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

Drag and Drop

  MS: want to make sure we are ok on DnD bug/issue logging?
  ... any new info?

  EZ: gez filed 2 bugs -- activate target attribute and one to make
  spec text more device agnostic; hixie said i don't see the exact
  change you want so set bug to WONTFIX

  <inserted> scribenick: JF

  JF asks if we should add the tracker issue keyword?

  MS: perhaps we need to try providing the sample text - if editor
  moves it back to WONTFIX then we can exscalate to tracker issue
  ... seems that with the 2 bugts, we are OK with DnD
  ... if hixie is not open to further dialog then we can accellerate
  this
  ... are all bases covered re: bugs

  <MikeSmith> jeanne, thanks!

  MS: are there any other issues that we need to raise, that we've not
  yet discussed, before Oct 1

  EZ: thinks it would be highly useful for a tooltip attribute

  wants to ask about this

  EZ: might be better to have a specific tooltip attribute, then we
  can specify it better

  MS: worth raising as a bug, yes
  ... likely response is that it's late in the game, but if not now,
  when?
  ... encourages EZ to raise the bug
  ... be sure to note the differences beteen this an @title
  ... this might be an element too

  (+1 from JF)

  MS: if there are any other similar types of issues, even if we've
  not discussed this before, then file the bug

  does not require the support of the TTF

  MS: no restricition on individuals filing bugs

sub-team reports

  <MikeSmith>
 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Media_Accessibility_Checklist&action=history

  <MikeSmith>
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist

  <MikeSmith>
 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  JF: further refined reqs beyond what ATAG and UAAG require
  ... must, should, may --- 1 person's take (JF's)
  ... tried to determine how to provide guidance to implementors
  ... effort to give good guidance as they start to roll out
  implementations
  ... we would like to hjave a straw poll in TF to review MAC --
  especially must,should wording and ATAG and UAAG reqs
  ... reviewing the three pieces of text want to get into media
  elements
  ... Janina sent request to public-html
  ... we believe is useful to bring some WHAT WG text into the W3C
  HTML spec
  ... javascripting -- non-controversial, so want to get into w3c spec
  ... rendering -- specific timestamp format -- asking editors to
  sanitize text from WHAT WG to strip from specific technology (WebSRT
  in WHAT WG) but need placeholder text in w3c spec; use that to
  compare diff timestamp formats, so as to find out which meets our
  reqs
  ... will be gathering evidence for each timestamp option -- if any
  one works but has shortcomings, we will be happy to provide
  suggestions

  MS: straw poll?

  JF: yes

  MS: need a little more info on questions on straw poll will be?

  JF: will do today

  MS: info from poll will be used to create followup bugs
  ... can't perfect all bugs before 1 october 2010 deadline

  JF: will be sending note to HTML WG chairs today -- want to get all
  ducks in a row before discussion of specific technological options;
  no text in W3C spec that address these 3 issues
  ... going to seek clarification on that from HTML WG chairs

Canvas

  MS: quick assesment on canvas in prep for LC?

  RS: had a number of proposals; trying to distill down what we need
  to do
  ... first thing (need a vote to close) - accessible dom proposal
  that allowed canvas subtree to support keyboard and a11y services
  ... HTML5 today pretty much uses the "adom" strategy -- need to
  ascertain if this is the only strategy being considered

  <kliehm> Canvas proposals:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0225.html

  RS: second: if don't want to navigate subtree but only behavior
  canvas elicits in subtree, can close that one -- this is behavior of
  canvas sub-tree and close 2 proposals; IE9 allows one to navigate
  the subtree -- filed bug for FF

  <MikeSmith> MikeSmith: so we may want to have a straw poll to the
  group to survey agreement about closing out the "adom" and "nonav"
  proposals

  <JF> +1 to MS

  RS: once those are done; how do we then drive magnification and show
  visual focus; have subtree but no way to map telemagnifier so that
  caret can be tracked; direct 2D on windows skips drawing calls and
  goes straight to hardware, so at can't get into the canvas element
  ... proposal to report caret position, blink rate, selection
  position to drive magnifier through api that does this -- problem:
  editor responded that people need drawing calls -- filed 2 bugs on
  that, but editor said this is too much work - no one will use canvas
  to do text editing; don't agree -- when people start to cloud
  compute, will use canvas as word processor

  <MikeSmith> Bespin

  <JF> JF picks up scribing

  <inserted> scribenick: JF

  RS: there has been a lot of arguing - editor does not want to add
  these APIs

  but we cannot leave the whole

  Rich will work to tie this to drawing calls

  MS: supports the strategy - spending time talking with implementors
  is more valuable than trying to educate those who do not have a
  direct stake in the issue
  ... getting feedback from moz and MS makes good sense

  RS: let's get something that works and move forward

  MS: have discussed with Chairs - still in the process of these big
  issues - likely that there will be clarrification bugs moving
  forward
  ... does not believe that we need to worry about the Oct. 1 deadline
  here, as these are issues we have been working on prior to Oct. 1
  ... so we just need to ensure that there is nothing brand new
  ... but for ongoing work, there should be no issues
  ... Anything about ARIA mappings?

  RS: notes that there is a lot of resistance to addressing things
  authors are doing today

  again we're going through a number of rounds with the editor (i.e
  role of image being image)

  RS: anticipates a number of escalations, as the editor seems to be
  contrary
  ... even when we put out examples, editor ignores them

  so no point arguing back and forth, will just elevate them

  RS: cyns has published an API mapping document last week

  MS: last item, open action items

  <MikeSmith> ACTION:63? [recorded in
  http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

  <MikeSmith> action-63?

  <trackbot> ACTION-63 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to create a bug on Content
  navigation by content structure -- due 2010-09-29 -- OPEN

  <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/63

  <MikeSmith> action-64?

  <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to file a bug on HTML 5 for
  Content Navigation by Content Structure due 20101001 -- due
  2010-09-29 -- OPEN

  <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/64

  JF: believes those bugs can be closed, will double check and follow
  up with MCooper

  MS: any other issues?

  <MikeSmith> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

  [End of minutes]
    _________________________________________________________

 
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 16:30:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:14 UTC