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

[Minutes] HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Feb 10., 2011

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:18:14 -0800 (PST)
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014a01cbc946$7f97f570$7ec7e050$@edu>
The minutes from the 10 February 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force
Teleconference can be accessed as hypertext from:


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



HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2011


See also: IRC log



+1.510.367.aaaa, +1.650.468.aabb, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Eric_Carlson,
John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Janina_Sajka, Jon_Gunderson, Marco_Ranon,
Rich, Cynthia_Shelly


Léonie_Watson, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson


Janina_Sajka & Mike_Smith





Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 10 February 2011

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> agenda: this

no review of subteam actions

GJR will get to his action item later

action 90 on m cooper not done

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 90

action 93 - can be closed (drag and drop)

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93

<MichaelC> close action-93

<trackbot> ACTION-93 find someone to work on change proposal for drag and
drop closed

action 100 on janina unsure about what it is

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 100

<MichaelC> close action-100

<trackbot> ACTION-100 - talk to Laura about decoupling of "what" from
"where" in preparation for discussion in WAI CG closed

janina- its complete

modal attribute for aria action on gregory

janina: we decide we were happy with it on ARIA, only

JF: which path do we want to pursue on modal?

<MichaelC> close action-102

<trackbot> ACTION-102 - draft request for reconsideration on Issue-30

MC: action on janina draft reconsideration on issue 30


<MichaelC> action-103: seems to favour

<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change
proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. notes added

<MichaelC> close action-103

<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change
proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. closed

subteam reports

RS: google is implementing canvas subtree dom for chrome, will be adding
focus ring support with caret not included, we have an upcoming poll on
aria, so am working on that

... chrome was not working with main screen reader vendor, but now maki8ng
good progres, chuck pritchard is developing cnavas editor

RS; before ARIA industry went to build rich internet app, the problem we
had was because developers need to do this, they were prohibited from
selling to government, the only reason they couln't make it accessible
beacuse the ability for authors to amke it accessble

RS: hixie wants us to provide use cases for every possible use of html,
authors have busieness reasons for doing these


RS: do we recommend that authors use standard controls as defined, YES,
but if the author wants to go in and do soemthing

accessibility should not be an inhibitor

cynthia: one par of his argument has merit, one of the things he struggles
with understanding, aria is fine with previous versions of \HTML, he
thjinks he has solved the problem doesn't want to confuse thinsg with non
native controls

RS: in our change proposal and in ARIA it states that authors should use
standard controls

cynthiaL: should acknowledge there is an improvement

<paulc> The survey on ISSUE-129 closes on Feb 17. Are others going to
reply to the survey?

<paulc> Steve's response is in:

RS: people can contribute to the group response or they can write their

paulc: update wiki to have support section

johngund: who decides?

paulc: chairs decide

... looking at strength of objections this is bad, but why

johngund: concept that authors have free choice isn't a strong argument?

paulc: no comment

<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0205.html

JF: media, 2 issues left to resolve, 1. how to integrate multimedia
content, sylvia has posted note about this

... there are 7 proposals about how to acheive this, sense of urgency,
request for change proposal by 21st of mont

janaina: claify this is for multiple binary resources

jf: but agout identical resources

... 2 time stamp formats lining up, webvtt and SMPTE-TT, superset of
timetext langauge

... should we say anyhting further or let market forces work it out

marco: not a lot happening on the bug front


janina: longdesc, theer is a lengthy proposal from laura, intended to
function as a request to reconsider longdesc

janaina: thinks its substantive, needs furtehjr tweaking

janina: thinks wai cg needs to be canvassed about this

jf: one note, epub working group looking at html5, want to wait before
developing a solution, but may bake their own if nothing comes out

paulc: won't say epub group doesn't want soultions to issues, but thinks
last call tiemframe is fine

Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance

<JF> SF: People want to have a number of requirements, and don't want

<JF> which the second option (url posted) seems to cover most of it

<JF> there is a difference between the machine check-able content, and
then content that is not machine-checkable

<JF> (This is all related to Issue 31)

<JF> there are 3 main parts to Issue 31

<JF> guidance to validation tools

<JF> image element definition verbiage - what is the source

<JF> the normative content

<JF> 3rd issues - text alternatives and their values


<JF> all of this information is in the link provided by steve

<JF> JS: by memory, option 2 aligns with the consensus from this group,
WAI, etc.

<JF> JS: the second issue raised by Laura, is also covered by the WAI
consensus postion, that guidance and techniques be under the WAI

<JF> where people go to look for that kind of guidance

<JF> as opposed to where they look for machine conformance guidance

<JF> This is on the WAI CG agenda, but has not yet been discussed by that

<JF> but has not yet been addressed

<JF> SF: we need to decide on a time line that is acceptable to the WG

<JF> JS: is there any opposition to splitting this out this way?

<JF> JS: seems we are on the right track here

<JF> SF: if we do agree on this as a group (or as individuals) we should
be reviewing this to ensure that we have robust arguments for the points
we are in support of

<JF> JS: this is the purpose of the survey
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 17:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:18 UTC