W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force Telecon 2011-04-07 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:29:23 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20110407162800.M69728@hicom.net>
aloha!

minutes from the 7 April 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force 
Teleconference can be accessed as hypertext from:

http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html

as an IRC log at:

http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-irc

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

thanks to SteveF for performing the vast bulk of the minuting; 
volunteers to scribe will now be solicited at the end of 
teleconferences a week in advance, so as to expedite the 
commencement of TF meetings...

     _________________________________________________________
                               - DRAFT -

             HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

07 Apr 2011

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0041.html

   See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Cynthia_Shelly, Eric_Carlson, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina_Sajka,
          John_Foliot, Judy, LĂ©onie_Watson, MRanon, Michael_Cooper,
          Mike, Rich, Steve_Faulkner

   Regrets
          Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau

   Chair
          MikeSmith

   Scribe
          Stevef, oedipus

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda Review
         2. Canvas Subteam Report
         3. Bug Triage Report
         4. media subteam report
         5. ARIA Mappijng Report
         6. @summary for TABLE
         7. Scribe for Nest Week's Call
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 07 April 2011

Agenda Review

   <inserted> scribenick: Stevef

   MS: not too much agenda one is talk about 1st public working draft
   for API ammping doc

   JS: wants to talk about @summary

   JB: maybe talk about @poster decision

   <oedipus> plus 1 to poster

   MS: any other suggestions?
   ... hearing none

   video poster issue 142

   <oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html

   MS: lets not cover hgroup today
   ... put mit on agendum for now and will be on for next week


Canvas Subteam Report

   MS: canvas subteam, only a few people on the call right?

   RS: only a few on the call, usuallu only a few
   ... waiting on chairs decision on issue 133, thinks we are in good
   shpe, depends on chahirs, other issue how do we get bounding
   rectangles on objects so that magnifiers can identify

   <oedipus> use of clickableregions to feed bounding examples:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-
api/2011JanMar/0090.html

   RS: not retained graphics in canvas, required for solid hit testing
   vehicle to drive AT support

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-131-objection-poll/results

   RS: example shows that to get around this developers use multiple
   canvas objects ugly

   <oedipus> minutes of canvas call 2011-04-04
   http://www.w3.org/2011/04/04-html-a11y-minutes.html

   RS: svg is having drawing path, canvas needs one to, have sent ian
   use cases, waiting to hear back, once we have hittesting will be
   able to drive accessibility

   MS: canvas is not retained mode by design, feature not shortcoming

   <oedipus> ever heard of unforseen consequences

   MS: essentially this can be seen as canvas being made into something
   it was nevr intended for, any response?

   <oedipus> a11y is often the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes
   to "standard" architectures

   RS: understand apples intenet for canvas, but reality entirely
   different, unlike svg most people doing desktop apps usnderstand
   canvas, they wiil/are using canvas to cerate applications, so from
   a11y perspective at the end of the day still have to have access to
   it, for a11y need fetaures built in

   <oedipus> profiles was feedback from the TV industry at TPAC 2010
   HTML WG F2F

   RS: at last tpac set top manufacturers said sweet spot for html5
   will be canvas + JS
   ... whats happeneing is not what was intended need to take this into
   account

   MS: this is not an incremental; change its fundemental change to
   architecture of canvas implementaion, is it necessary and why?
   ... what will they gain?

   RS: do we have to do a full blown reatined mode? I don't think we
   do, only needed for hot testing

   MS: probably said enough for now, have enough info to go forward

   JF: canvas + JS thanks

   RS: ian highlighted need to develope solution not just for
   accessibility, hiti testing does that
   ... not askin g for all, just enough to support a11y

   <oedipus> hit-testing is needed by AT devs -- they asked for it

   RS: put in a very simple hit testing stratgey on top of canvas
   without having to have full retained mode

   MS: bug triage next, mike, marco, martin?


Bug Triage Report

   MC: not much done,in last few weeks

   <oedipus> plus 1 to big thanks to bug triage team

   MS: letting things queue up a bit due to last call
   ... bug triage team greta job!
   ... no urgency

   OK thanks


media subteam report

   <oedipus> media telecon minutes from 2011-04-06
   http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html

   JF: focused on vexing issue 152, multitrack API, chairs granted
   extension, have 3-4 solid proposals with fundemantal differences,
   still talking issues through
   ... lot of discussion about Ian's mediacontroller proposal,
   discussion about master timeline, still dissecting options, will be
   having to con calls a week for the next few weeks, convey our sense
   of urgency to chairs please mike
   ... resolution critical to last call
   ... general feeling is that calls are productive

   MS: you sid it would be extremely problematic if we get it reoslved
   prior to last call,

   JF: if we can't do it we cannot provide sign language captions

   MS: does not mean we won't vere have it but not just before last
   call

   JF: if it goes into last call without then the htnl5 spec will not
   be complete

   <Zakim> judy, you wanted to further clarify for Mike

   MS: HTML WG or W3C process does not require it to be complete before
   going to last call

   <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/

   JB: people feel that significant requirement will niot be met if
   certain requirements are not in the spec, multitrack is something
   that is needed to meet the crieria of being feature complete before
   last call
   ... if there was progress before last call, the co-chairs asserted
   that they would not stand on formality, thats why people are working
   hjard to get consensus before last call

   <MikeSmith> I don't accept the assertion that not having this
   decided by start of LC will compromise progress of implementations
   during the coming year

   JB: one of the reasons why the last call timimg is of concern, is as
   we all know it is being implemented as it involves, not having
   stable multitrack will comprimise implementations in the coming
   year, thinks track it is one now is making gopod progress so should
   not be an issue

   <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that this is not a "must"
   requirement in the process document, and the WG chairs have
   discretion to determine LC process for their groups

   <JF> +q

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance

   <oedipus> this is similar to canvas -- it is being implemented NOW
   by fiat without a11y isxues addressed, and it is MUCH harder to
   address a11y after-the-fact than building it in from the start

   MS: prcess doc does not say the spec has to be feature complete,
   gives WG chairs discretion, which is what the HTML chairs are doing,
   also do not agree that it will comprimise implementation in the
   coming year regardless ofif this gets decided before LC
   ... if we try to force resolution before lC could be a problem, we
   have people working together, on the path to resolution

   JF: moving to alst call will we continue to get heartbeat udpates
   during last call? after may 22nd

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels

   MS: its up to html wg chairs for publication, they feel strongly
   about heartbeat requirements, feel they will be pushing to continue
   . also implementors will work from editors draft not stable spec
   ... what authors of books and turorials do we can't have control
   over

   JF: so impelemntors have control?

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that 1 problem is blind obedience
   to "WG process" -- canvas a11y work was a specific task of Canvas
   Subteam, there should have been no call for

   MS: yes implementors have control over wehat goes into the spec

   Gregory: disagree with process

   MS: need to take it up with the chairs
   ... talke it up on the html call/mailing list

   <JF> You can have Quality, On budget, and On Time - pick 2

   <JF> +1 to Judy

   MS: affects us but we cannot do anything about it in the a11 task
   force

   <oedipus> plus 1 to judy -- W3C process different from "WG process"
   set up by chairs, but they are following cookie-cutter process which
   is detrimental to development of spec

   JB: it may be useful to refer to 2 different levels of process 1.
   w3c process protective of accessibility , html wg microprocess
   directs them to issue call for proposal even on areas that have been
   worked on by taskforces

   <oedipus>
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels

   JB: we have disagreements amongst w3c reps in regards to feature
   completeness. disagree on interpretation of feature completeness
   ... have several items in a11y area now where it may need a forma
   objection. one of the process things that is very clear if you
   disagree there are steps to object

   would,like to get groups disagreement documented

   <eric_carlson> minus 1 to Judy -- giving *any* group of experts
   absolute authority is a bad idea

   <JF> @ eric_carlson - as opposed to allowing uninformed participants
   steam-roller issues that harms real accessibility?

   JB: my sense is moving things that are stuck, may be usefulto get a
   more focused discussion, form subgroup to develop propsoal aroun alt
   issues

   <oedipus> eric_carlson, we aren't asking for absolute authority --
   only that the HTML WG and chairs recognize that accessibility is the
   specific focus of the TF and the WAI and that info from those fora
   deserve to be listened to and not told that our use cases concern
   someone's mother-in-law (see last week's statement by paulc)

   JB: media current status, support from co-chairs, not stand on
   ceremony if progress to consensus

ARIA Mappijng Report

   <oedipus> MS: summary of where subgroup is at?

   <oedipus> SF: haven't had meetings due to other work and due to work
   assigned at SD f2f

   <JF> +q

   <oedipus> SF: 2 areas of work: 1 writing text for definition of
   @role and aria attributes in HTML5 -- will ocur during last call

   <oedipus> SF: 2. HTML-A11y-API doc -- emailing those concerned to
   get more fomal process to work on document -- a lot of work -- need
   others' involvement

   <oedipus> SF: HTML-A11y API mapping document will get more attention
   once the aria-in-html work is done

   <oedipus> CS: should see progress in 2 weeks time

   <oedipus> MS: announced on list consensus for FPWD of A11y APIs

   <oedipus> MS: waing for chairs to send request for transition to plh

   MS: paul said we had consensus for html accessibility API guide to
   be publsihed as FPWD

   <oedipus> MS: waiting for comm team to get frist FPWD published --
   maybe tuesday or thursday this week

   oedipus: can you scribe now as i gotta go soon/


@summary for TABLE

   <oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html

   <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

   JB: assume everyone on call has read WG decision

   [general yeses]

   JB: yes or no question: do people feel that HTML5 is feature
   complete without @summary for TABLE

   SF: yes

   GJR: no

   JS: no

   JF: no

   CS: can live with it (actgually, without it in HTML5)

   RS: my take on @sumjmary -- advantages to saying can do same things
   with ARIA that is cross-platform
   ... some advantages to control what we provide in host langauges --
   have to do if summary out or not

   <JF> +q

   JB: do people feel co-chairs decision on table summary showed full
   understanding of the accessibility issues and accessiblity in
   general

   <Stevef> SF:yes

   GJR: no definitely not

   JF: hixie posted to mailing list that ARIA only for A11y API mapping
   ... hixie claims aria only affects a11y API mappings and only for
   ATs

   RS: design is interoperability for AT

   JF: quotes from hixie
   ... decision for TABLE summary is wrong because says use ARIA to fix
   all problems
   ... goes in wrong direction

   RS: alt is also used when turn graphics off -- alt text would be
   rendered in content, so has additional functionality
   ... doesn't apply to @summary
   ... could do same thing through A11y API
   ... some ATs will use DOM -- get same static info

   JF: looks like trying to use conformance checkers to undue existing
   attributes in HTML4/XHTML1
   ... what is practical impact of removing @summary for TABLE from
   HTML5?

   RS: if comes out, need to provide WCAG 2.0 techs to deliver what
   summary does today -- how to do with ARIA
   ... don't worry about conformance checkers -- most content today is
   all rendered on client and conformance checker would miss that --
   A11y test tools test dynamic content -- can tell if @summary or
   aria-label missing
   ... validators today miss most of today's web content

   JB: may need a subteam to look at mulitple issues concerning
   alternate descriptions of content -- several appear to be lacking --
   rejected or lack of understanding of rationale by chairs

   <MikeSmith> before we adjourn, is there anybody please who can
   volunteer to scribe for next week's call?

   JB: on @longdesc concerned that TF role a bit confused -- subgroup
   could stablize and champion propsal

   JS: have action to write up use cases to write up -- should take
   LC's proposal to TF and work on it from there

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say @summary cannot be "pushed-off"
   onto ARIA -- what about thosee who don't use AT

   <judy> JB asks who's interested in sub-group on alternative
   descriptions? perhaps people can start expressing interest in irc
   now?

   <JF> Judy - add me

   <JF> +1 to greg

   GJR: the chairs have removed a feature of HTML added EXPRESSLY to
   increase accessibility--this should NOT have been done without
   acknowledging the need/use cases clearly articulated from those who
   directly benefit from @summary--can we perhaps have a PF/WAI finding
   that all markup introduced to HTML4 expressly for accessibility MUST
   either be equaled or improved by HTML5, which means not judging
   such markup by "standard" web metrics;


Scribe for Nest Week's Call


   JB: best to rotate --

   judy, micheal has a scribe rotation list

   MS: anything else need to do before adjournment?

   <MikeSmith> adjourned

   <richardschwerdtfe> Judy: sure I would be happy to participate in
   subteams on some of the issues such as text equivalents


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 16:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:19 UTC