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

minutes: HTML Accessibility TF Telecon 2011-06-02 [draft]

From: Ranon, Marco <Marco.Ranon@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:17:26 +0100
Message-ID: <7BE2C6E5157992408EEFEC13F3C479200214978B@jstmsx02.ads.rnib.org.uk>
To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hello,

Minutes from the 2 June 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force telecon 
can be accessed as hypertext at: 

http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-html-a11y-minutes.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/201
1/06/02-html-a11y-minutes.html

and as plain text below.

Note that the scribe was Marco_Ranon, not Steve_Faulkner.

- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
02 Jun 2011

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Eric, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Marco, JF, Lynn_Holdsworth,
[IPcaller], Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets
    Laura_Carlson
Chair
    Janina_Sajka
Scribe
    Steve_Faulkner

Contents

    Topics
    Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> Scribe: Steve_Faulkner

<janina> agenda: this

JS: Organizing Last Call Review
... Laura is monitoring the bugs
... Bug triage team will need to continue checking the bugs for a11y
keyword
... Martin Kliem not on the call, maybe a bit busier than before.
... we might ask PF and WCAG to read various parts of the specs and also
people on the TF
... need to decide what should we read and what safely skip? and have at
least 2 or 3 people reading each section

JF: good chunks of the specs are really technical and have no impact on
TF work. should we check the entire thing or focus on area with more
impact?

<LJW> +1 to focusing our efforts.

JS: yes. pull out the TOC for each specs and select parts with UI impact
... we also need to look at the deadlines

MC: 9 weeks left

MS: happy to help with selecting which parts of the specs should be
checked by the TF

JF: should we start with the HTML5 for web authors?

MS: yes but there are also implementation issues that we need to verify

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say I will be very glad to help with
determining which parts of the spec to focus on for review

CS: also user agent behavior can impact accessibility

JF: we need to make sure we have the right resources
... in the TF we are relatively thin on the technical side

JS: we should identify what to review first and then the resources
... should we look at the TOC?

<MichaelC> HTML 5, 25 May 2011

MC: [reading out top level TOC]
... 2 Common infrastructure, probably not a priority, but important for
vendors. We should ask Apple, Microsoft, Opera, etc to find people
... Apple: James Craig, Opera: Charles, Mozilla: David B, MS: Cynthia
... 3 Semantics, structure, and APIs of HTML documents

MS: 3.2.3 Global attributes is one review task, 3.2.5 Content models
another one
... 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA: finish our work and review

3.5 Dynamic markup insertion: probably nees a quick look (CS)

4 The elements of HTML

4.2 Document metadata, we need to review it

4.3 Scripting, maybe

4.4 Sections, yes

4.5 Grouping content, yes

4.6 Text-level semantics, yes

4.7 Edits, yes

4.8 Embedded content, need to split it: img, iframe (seamless attribute
makes it important for accessibility)+embed+object+param,
video+audio+source+track+ 4.8.10 Media

4.8.11 The canvas element

4.8.12-14: map, area, image maps together

4.8.15 MathML, need to try to find people, but yes for review
(implementation issues)

4.8.16 SVG, yes

4.9 Tabular data, yes

4.10 Forms, yes, careful review

4.11 Interactive elements, we might want to split it

4.11.1 The details element with 4.11.2 The summary element

CS: would be good to get content producers to review the specs

4.12 Links, yes

MS: 4.13 Common idioms without dedicated elements, seems to relate to
ARIA landmarks

CS and to WCAG techniques

MS: 4.14 Matching HTML elements using selectors, review with interactive
elements (Cynthia)

5 Loading Web pages, maybe UAAG can comment

6 Web application APIs, yes in one block

CS: i'll get someone in MS to review this.

MS: 7 User interaction, we should break it down

focus and keyboard shortcuts one review, content editable and grammar
and spelling checking one review, drag and drop by its own, Editing APIs
should be part of both content editable and with script reviews

hidden attribute and activation with keyboard focus or scripting

CS: i'll find someone in MS and help

MS: 8 The HTML syntax, should we worry about this? with parsing maybe,
low priority

9 The XHTML syntax, same

10 Rendering, probably not normative, but ask UAAG and part of
interactions. also ask implementors

11 Obsolete features, should we review the all section or cherry pick?

review all

12 IANA considerations, probably not used by AT

12.4 text/cache-manifest might have AT implications

MS: will be catched in review for section 5

CS: also vendors and content providers should review it

JS: we need a wiki with all these notes and then assign the sections to
reviewers
... we didn't discuss how to determine that we have consensus, but we'll
need to do it soon

Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]


---
Marco Ranon
Principal Web Access Consultant

RNIB Access Consultancy Services
105 Judd Street
London
WC1H 9NE

Telephone: 020 7391 2064
Mobile: 079 4383 9318
Fax: 020 7387 7109
Email: marco.ranon@rnib.org.uk
Web: www.rnib.org.uk/webaccesscentre

Get to grips with accessibility at one of our training courses, designed
for everyone from interested managers to designers and developers:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/webaccesstraining

Why not follow us on Twitter? See us at
http://twitter.com/webaccesscentre

RNIB Access Consultancy Services aims to help create an inclusive
society through improved access for disabled people to physical
environments, signage, websites, information and products. 


-- 
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk



This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Security - 
http://www.websense.com/content/HostedEmailSecurity.aspx
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 16:18:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:40 GMT