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

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force telecon 2011-01-20 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:35:52 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20110120173440.M82806@hicom.net>

minutes from today's HTML A11y TF telecon are available as hypertext 


as an IRC log at:


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

thanks to SteveF for scribing today's call and a reminder:  January 22, 
2011 is the cut-off for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration--issues 
should be entered into the WG tracker and calls for proposals issued by 
this date should be fulfilled. Consequences of missing this date: any 
further escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment 
(consult: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LastCallTimeline)


                             - DRAFT -

            HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

20 Jan 2011


  See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-irc


         John_Foliot, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mike, Janina, Eric_Carlson,
         Michael_Cooper, paulc, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Sean_Hayes,
         kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly

         Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon, Léonie_Watson, Kenny_Johar,
         Joshue_O'Connor, Silvia_Pfieffer, Leonie_Watson


         oedipus, Stevef


    * Topics
        1. Face to Face
        2. Survey on Text Alternatives
        3. Canvas Sub-Team Report
        4. ARIA Mapping Sub-Team Report
        5. Bug-Triage Sub-Team Update
        6. Timeline to Last Call
    * Summary of Action Items

  <trackbot> Date: 20 January 2011

  <paulc> Trying to join on Zakim, but my machine has been asleep for
  3 weeks and it is taking some time to get going today!

  <paulc> No sympathy requested or expected.


Face to Face

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  RS: mike are you coming?

  MS: travelling to cambridge to meet with administration/management
  -- may stay in U.S. for couple of weeks
  ... probably need to figure out travel and plan on attending

  JS: hoping that PaulC could attend

  MS: would be in San Diego

  PC: in Ottowa
  ... been gone for 3 weeks - -have to catch up -- exact dates?

  JS: 19 and 20 March 2011 (Saturday/Sunday)

  PC: week aftger SXSW

  JS: yes, venue and date due to CSUN conferenfce

  <MikeSmith> scribenick: oedipus

  PC: will get back to JS and MS on attendance -- would seriously like
  to attend -- may be going to SXSW -- have to coordinate

  <MikeSmith> Confirmed Face to Face meeting of HTML Accessibility
  Task Force

  MS: MCooper posted details to list confirming times and dates and
  ... anything new MCooper?

  MC: meeting page without full info yet

  <MichaelC> Face to Face meeting page

  MC: assumption is will be in meeting room of Hyatt in San Diego --
  not confirmed -- up to host
  ... create registration survey and post to public-html-a11y

Survey on Text Alternatives

  <MikeSmith> results of survey on text alternatives

  whats going to be done with the survey?

  SF: didn't go into detail in comments, but could....

  MS: purpose of survey collect data responses on consensus within
  group about various exceptions -- exceptions for cases where 1 can
  omit @alt

  survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses on text
  alternatives do we have consensus on exceptions

  MS: want to decide which exceptions we support, and which we don't

  SF: need more reasoning?

  MS: need more respondents -- but is that necessary?

  not worth providing more reasoning

  <oedipus> MS: how to procede?

  JS: survey do we have support for a particular proposal

  <oedipus> GJR: propose that we give TF members another week to fill
  out survey

  JS: on alt text in HTML5, look at survey and compare to chart of

  MC: not opposed but not for extending survey

  <oedipus> GJR: if summarize results and post to public-html-a11y can
  give TF members a chance to evaluate and endorse

  MS: muliple change proposals will proceed through wroking group
  anyway, should taskforce endorse one or more

  JS: mike is right
  ... a range of probabilities, where is the consensus?

  JF: seem to be clear trends in survey

  JS: if we have consnensus maybe we don't need more numbers
  ... lets take the trended responses and refere to chnage proposals

  <oedipus> plus 1

  <richardschwerdtfe> BRB


  SF: in agreement with trends -- 1 for aria-labelledby conforming
  text alternative and role="presentation" -- disagree with these
  because neither fulfill same role as @alt in browsers, no indication
  UAs will treat the 2 in the same way, and there is open hostility to
  using ARIA-annotations to "fix" normal display in UAs
  ... for aria-labelledby, how would serve as text equivalent?
  ... empty @alt with role="presentation"
  ... graphical browsers, when image loading turned off, needs a
  non-ARIA solution -- what is missing is some plan or proposal for
  how UAs will implement this

  CS: underspecced aria-labelledby and role="presentation" for
  "regular user agents"

  SF: looked into aria-labelledby quite a bit in composing Alt Text
  Techs -- have not found aria-labelledby sufficient to replace @alt
  -- may be useful in case where one uses FIGURe and
  FIGCAPTION/CAPTION but haven't found good use cases for it

  RS: use labelledby when have text that is visible -- if embedded
  text, use aria-label

  SF: understand use cases -- what i haven't found is evidence for use
  of aria-labelledby without an @alt without an image on a web page

  RS: if have @alt, use it

  SF: true

  RS: if have large chart and have the title for chart then there is
  your labelledby value, but separate from chart

  CS: use cases for no @alt
  ... suggestion is not require aria-labelleby, but that it is ok to

  <JF> +q

  SF: can't come up with reason to use aria-labelleby that is superior
  to using @alt

  RS: big picture with short name (CAPTION for sighted users)

  SF: that is what FIGCAPTION is for
  ... if caption element, make relationship programmatic between image
  and caption
  ... issue with describedby and labelledby -- if have text elsewhere
  on page, when get to imagtte, hear referenced text -- still hear
  text when read-all --

  <eric> should we be concerned that a group of the world's
  accessibility experts can't agree on how to label an image?

  SF: aria-labelledby scenario -- in application mode -- not getting
  access to on-screen text -- moving between focusable elements

  GJR: role isn't defined in HTML5 spec
  ... need to pin down what a @role in HTML5 is

  RS: aria-integration -- role refers to section of ARIA where role
  attribute defined

  <inserted> scribenick: SteveF

  RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role

  <JF> +q

  <oedipus> RS: have to define @role

  GJR: HTML5 spec does not define @role, and ARIA states that @role is
  similar to that defined in Role Attribute, but no normative
  reference to @role from HTML5

  JF: if alt is not present then others will suffice

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  SF: if have a piece of text that is referenced by aria-labelledby,
  that text becomes accessible name value for image -- no semantic

  JF: always said that @alt should never be supplied by machine --
  same rule for labelledby -- can't be assigned programmatically or by
  authoring tool

  SF: that ends up doing the same thing as @alt does
  ... got a heirarchy of things

  GJR: we want a cascascade of equivalency

  SF: when issue of providing reason for aria-labelledby use i came up
  with Flickr to re-use heading or title on page for image (if one
  image on page or one image in DIV) -- TITLE best for aria-labelledby
  ... different from authoring practices -- limitation of tool
  ... auto-generated web page, should create a relationship

  MS: what actions can we take away to move this forward?
  ... not saying don't need progress on these issues, but unsure of
  where to go from here -- could say disagree with some deatails of
  change proposals -- first task: find out what TF feels about change
  ... change proposals will move forward if submitted by individuals
  ... what is the TF role in this?

  JS: did survey results highlight agreement?
  ... Laura charted what supported -- need comparison

  <inserted> scribenick: Stevef

  JS: somebody needs to compare change proposals

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  JS: extend survey -- not going to hold anything up

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  <inserted> scribenick: Stevef

  JS: lets extend the discussion

  MS: you and i can talk about this lets extend survey for another
  ... TOPIC: Media Sub-Team Report
  ... media subteam any bdiscussion about feedback from google?

  JS: not discussed but make way to talk about it next week
  ... talked about poster issue, various points of disagreement, we
  uncovered another requirement whcichis not documented yet
  ... no programmatic way to tell browser i don't want autoplay

  <oedipus> Google feedback on HTML5 media a11y (Silvia Pfieffer)

  MS: sounds like a big deal, next step? do we need to file a bug/

  JF: yes absolutley

  JS: can you file the bug?

  JF: yes

  MS: move on it sooner ratrher than later

  eric: not sure if its a user agent problem or not

  MS: google feedback is good should act on it pronto, nit delay

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings


Canvas Sub-Team Report

  rich: close on focus ring, still working on caret, google may join
  the meetings

  <oedipus> the EXPERTS (AISquared) said they need caret even without

  RS: use contenteditable?

  SF: using the DOM

  RS: if use DOM and not using canvas, still have to deal with grammar
  and spelling errors -- problems that don't go away -- plus NEED a
  ... same set of problems with RTE or other interactive CANVAS
  ... caret helps with positioning of text -- populated to a11y API
  layer -- only thing left is grammar and spell-checking
  ... use case: VM access to a Unix system -- wrote modification to
  canvas that intercepts drawing calls that would create virtual
  desktop via CANVAS so can work on own machine remotely using CANVAS
  ... once 1 has canvas, 1 opens a HUGE bucket of worms

  MS: should investigate in more detail

ARIA Mapping Sub-Team Report

  SF: ARIA mapping call
  ... hixie provided an alternative counter proposal -- some things
  quite useful -- pointed out errors and issues with alt spec text --
  started to work way through to pull out items that need further
  ... won't make major difference if don't include the changes that
  have been suggested for spec text -- worth discussing the bits to
  get down to core issues
  ... me, Rich, DBolter, Cyns will attend next week
  ... put hixie's counter proposal in wiki
  ... now counter propasal has been submitted, have time to respond --
  can we modify our proposal to reflect new information?


  PC: if can't get consensus on initial change proposal and do call
  for counter-proposal and info in counter-proposal contains info that
  means original change proposal needs tweaking -- best thing to do if
  impact original change proposal, tell chairs that and negotiate a
  schedule before chairs run survey
  ... make clear to WG and counter-proposal author how trying to take
  their comments in consideration by chaning change proposal
  ... short answer: yes

  SF: hixie posted bug on this -- claimed won't be implemented
  ... HTML to A11y API mapping hixie claims not needed; browser
  vendors disagreed, now hixie posted bug against whole thing to
  reflect his change of mind, but no details on ISSUE-129 -- when
  wilil he elaborate on his thinking?
  ... need to know what hixie intends to put into spec before can

  MS: understood

  PC: should make clear from your position what you believe is
  blocking next step -- write email to make clear to chairs that don't
  want to proceede to survey until all info available and all parties
  have time to reflect on issue
  ... also, ask me questions when i am here (and i try to make all the
  meetings i can)

  SF: reasonable questions asked yield no response -- what to do other
  than wait?
  ... deafining silence in some areas

  PC: if feel that is happening, please send me a private note --
  going to drop off for HTML WG call

Bug-Triage Sub-Team Update

  MS: bug-triage update?

  MC: dealing with bugs, want to mark verified and close, but not
  original filer, so in limbo -- want to know how much discretion is
  up to triage team

  JF: who filed bugs?

  MC: various people

  JF: contributor@whatwg.org bugs been mostly closed

  MS: for those, once triage team reviews, TF has to take ownership so
  that action can be taken on them
  ... if no one complains, then ok -- if complaints, then deal with
  them as specific problems

  <richardschwerdtfe> sorry, had to drop

  MK: we can verify without problem -- Laura wanted to know once a bug
  is verified/fixed original reporter has 2 week time frame to close
  or reply -- if no reply, closes automatically after 2 weeks

  MC: process feature?

  MS: yes

  MC: a lot of bugs are still open

  MK: ok to verify bug -- next person who comes across it can close it

  MC: didn't have that understanding

  MS: think in decision policy document

  MC: says bug closes, but not who closes it

  MS: should raise as decision policy bug -- will look into this today
  and talk to chairs about this

  <kliehm> Once a bug is verified the reporter has two weeks to
  respond, otherwise the bug can be closed.

Timeline to Last Call

  GJR: change proposals due 22 january 2011 to be considered pre-Last
  Call comments

  January 22, 2011 is the cut-off for escalating bugs for pre-LC
  consideration--all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by
  this date. Consequences of missing this date: any further
  escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment

Summary of Action Items

  [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 17:36:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:17 UTC