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

Text Subteam Teleconference Minutes for 22 August

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:16:40 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110822171640.GD8369@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the Text Subteam teleconference of the HTML-A11Y Task Force on Monday 22 August appear below in text and are also available as hypertext at:



                                                           - DRAFT -

                                      HTML A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group Teleconference

22 Aug 2011

   See also: IRC log


          John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa, Judy, Lynn_Holdsworth, Janina, Joshue, Laura_Carlson


          Joshue, JF, Josh, janina


     * Topics
         1. Meta Generator
         2. @Summary CP
         3. meta generator proposal
         4. table summary <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary>
         5. meta generator proposal
         6. Meta Name Generator
         7. meta generator proposal
         8. response to Jonas on longdesc <http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Jfoliot/longdescresponse>
         9. update from bug triage team on when any new text-alternative-related bugs might be incoming?
        10. other business?
        11. HTML5 A11Y TF consensus process
     * Summary of Action Items

   <Joshue> scribe: Joshue

Meta Generator

@Summary CP

   <JF> scribe: JF

meta generator proposal

table summary <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary>

   <Joshue> Josh's CP http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary

   JB: note that Laura C posted some additional info w.r.t. the @summary response

   JO: not yet had a chance to review, but it is new data/info

   knowing laura it is likely very good stuff, and worth adding, but need to read through it quickly

   JB: can we take a quick skim and review Laura's additional info

   <Judy> http://lists.w3.org//Public/public-html-a11y/2011Aug/0515.html

   [taking a minute to read the email]

   <Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Aug/0515.html

   <Joshue> Lynn: We were looking for use cases but couldn't find any

   LH: Both Leonie and I looked for use cases and were unable to come up with any

   <Joshue> JS: Laura does point out that there are use case

   JS: Just wish to say that I can appreciate how they may have not succeeded with that, but Laura notes that there are
   use-cases already in the proposal

   <Joshue> JS: They need to be up front

   JS: the chairs sometimes don't "get it", and having the use-cases up front provides the 'schooling' to understand the

   <Joshue> +q

   JO: there ae re use-cases. It is tricky and a bit difficult, we are reiterating the same thing

   Laura's points are correct,, with out use-cases and justification are key

   JO: Lief has provided excellent data on where support is missing

   <Joshue> I'm going to add Leif to the wiki http://malform.no/testing/html5/table+aria.html

   JO: happy to hand this to Laura to re-work, or if Laura could submit a second proposal...

   <Joshue> -q

   JB: if Joshue could take a second pass, it would retain some consistency

   <Judy> ACTION: Josh update the table summary proposal to incorporate Laura's input, and Leif's examples [recorded in

   <Joshue> JF: Laura points to Vlad blog, I would rather not include that link. It is negative towards ARIA

   <Joshue> JOC: Noted

   <Joshue> JF: The gist is that ARIA is really complicated etc, and it is the wrong message.

   <Joshue> +q

   JF notes that the Vlad Alexander blog proposal is negative to ARIA and could lead to other issues down the road

   JB: asks JO if he can take another pass at this over the next days

   JO: can do so this week and will shoot for end of week
   ... will try and do justice with what Laura has submitted.

   <Judy> [judy will put table summary on the agenda for next week again]

   JB: if anyone else has any other input/feedback to this please speak up

   <Joshue> Scribe: Josh

meta generator proposal

Meta Name Generator

   <Joshue> JB: I want to see if anyone has comments

   <Joshue> JB: Otherwise I think we will leave it for a week or so when SteveF is here.

   <Joshue> JF: I have looked at it, it looks good.

   <Judy> Judy: FYI, here are Laura's comments on the meta name generator proposal

   <Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Aug/0516.html

   <Joshue> JF: We don't say that we should be rejecting the current decision, but one has been made - we talk about
   problems about the descision but what do we suggest?

   <Joshue> JF: Are we making a forceful enough case?

   <Joshue> JB: Maybe restate it.

   <Joshue> JF: The current CP doesn't make a strong case for reversing the desicion.

   <Joshue> JB: So make a strong case then!

   <Joshue> JF: I will contact Steve about this.

   <Joshue> JB: Laura had sent some comments, they are on IRC (dropped in here)- she mentioned evidence that was ignored
   in the descision - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Aug/0516.html

   <Joshue> JB: She is suggesting adding to Mike Smiths validator

   <Joshue> JS: The idea comes from the Birmingham F2F

   <Joshue> JS: It is a subtle strategic move, to make this work.

   <Judy> and Steve's proposal, reminder link:

   <Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming

   <Joshue> JB: Regarding the rest of Steves proposal - if there is anything that others spot, please do comment or drop
   in IRC etc so Steve can track it

   <Joshue> +q

meta generator proposal

   JO: agree that there is not really clear about what the CP was about.
   ... Needs to better define what the problem is - more clearly.

   JS: it comes back to the use-cases - lay out the problem more clearly right from the start

   JB: is the problem with the Title - is it clear enough?

   <Joshue> JOC: +1 to Janina

   JS: I would change the "does not" to "must not"

   <Judy> judy... or "missing alt should not be conforming in the presence of meta name generator"

   <Joshue> -q

   <Judy> judy: it's useful to offer additional clarification of user needs

   <Judy> ...some developers have not necessarily had the exposure to the diversity of users as they carry out different
   tasks and functions on the web

   <Joshue> :-)

   <Judy> janina: barrier reduction is complex.... some features are needed to ensure usability across people with
   different disabilities, different configurations, and different skill levels

   <Joshue> Just to say I totally agree with Janina, but I remember the maxim 'A man changed against his will is of the
   same opinion still'

   JB: proposing another agenda tweak
   ... hope we arrive to a better shared understanding

   <Joshue> JB: I think we should talk about response to Jonas.

   <Joshue> JB: Objections?

   <Joshue> JS: Nope, but I have an idea before we wrap up.

   <Joshue> JB: Lynn you asked me to send some example for figcaption etc, I haven't sent yet but I need to prepare. There
   are others looking at this.

   <Joshue> JB: Anyone wanting to talk about figcaption?

   <Joshue> JB: Thanks to Lynn for offering to test examples, I will be preparing examples to circulate.

   <Joshue> JB: Cyns and RichS are both involved.

   <Joshue> JB: There will be a discussion in Sept 1st

response to Jonas on longdesc <http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Jfoliot/longdescresponse>

   <Joshue> JB: JohnF's proposal came out this morning, thanks John.

   <Judy> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Jfoliot/longdescresponse

   <Joshue> JF: It's a response rather than a proposal really.

   <Joshue> <group reads>

   <Joshue> I will need more time to parse this doc outside this call..

   <Joshue> +q

   <Judy> Josh: need to say that the non-discoverability issue is user agent responsibility

   <janina> scribe: janina

   <Judy> Janina: think we're getting there, with this response. No overall philosophical comments so far. Concern would
   be just to be more specific, for instance with "this proposal" when there are multiple

   <Judy> ...and the description of the current behavior of describedby... that behavior is as is intended... as designed.

   <Judy> Janina: Jonas is asking aria describedby to do something it wasn't designed to do, e.g. to subvert the intended
   designed of aria describedby

   <JF> JF: Made a direct edit in the wiki, now reads "In contrast, the *designed* behavior of Screen Reading

   judy: Will need to read more carefully, but have some rhetorical comments already ...
   ... Hmmm, looking ... there's a part where, as a reader, I get lost ...
   ... bottom of discoverability section, there's a Q that goes straight into ...

   jf: There are three key points to be made, noted up top
   ... Discoverability is first
   ... Preservation of rich content
   ... Usability, the need to preserve support for existing UAs
   ... Have less support in UAs using ARIA at this time

   judy: Wondering whether the rhetorical device of ending a section with a Q may be confusing, where it's not clear where
   one section/argument ends and another begins
   ... Hopefully a simple suggestion ... End each suection with a simple and clear wrap up

   jf: Also agree at keeping the two proposals distincly clear, identifying Jonas' proposal vs TF proposal
   ... Can take a bit more time over the next few days
   ... I hear the feedback and have ideas on how to get this in
   ... Meanwhile, written feedback will be helpful

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Jfoliot/longdescresponse#User_Interaction_-_Discoverability

   <JF> qack JF

   laura: Noting that longdesc and table summary issues have much in common

   judy: Noting there are two CP's on longdesc in addition to the TF consensud proposal from Laura

update from bug triage team on when any new text-alternative-related bugs might be incoming?

other business?

HTML5 A11Y TF consensus process

   <Judy> janina: a lot has changed since TF began

   <Judy> ...need to update the consensus process

   <Judy> ...proposes that TF can delegate to the TF sub-groups, so that the sub-group can propose a consensus to the TF

   <Judy> ...and only gets surveyed if objections raised

   <JF> JB: have a number of reservations about this. concerns around levels, process, the fact that this is a joint

   janina: proposing that subteams propose a consensus that the TF telecon agrees (or not) and so minutes. Objections
   raised against those minutes would go to a WBS

   <JF> JB: the fact that this is a joint TF makes this even more complicated. Reliance on sub-groups complicates things
   even more; question of timing and participation criteria

   judy: consideration about time flow and participation

   <JF> JB: perhaps need to work on this more.

   <JF> JS: the unstated notion here is that if you are not participating in the minutes or telecons then you are not

   <JF> LC: streamlining the policy is a good idea

   <JF> but for those who cannot attend the telecons also need the opportunity to provide input'

   jf: How much longer will the TF be working?
   ... Streamlining is a good idea, but participation is an important concern

   judy: Support TF consensus streamlining, but want to be particularly careful about how this works vis a vis Subteams
   ... Expect the TF will stay operational until HTML5 goes TR

   [discussing schedule for next few weeks]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Josh update the table summary proposal to incorporate Laura's input, and Leif's examples [recorded in

   [End of minutes]
Scribes: Joshue, JF, Josh, janina
Present: John_Foliot +44.207.391.aaaa Judy Lynn_Holdsworth Janina Joshue Laura_Carlson
People with action items: josh


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 17:17:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:44 GMT