W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2012

[minutes] A11y TF Text subteam (2012/04/03)

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:42:40 -0700
To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <036501cd11c9$8e103d20$aa30b760$@ca>
Friends,

The minutes from today's call can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/04/03-text-minutes.html 

...or immediately below. Please report any errors to this list.

Cheers!

JF

***************

A11Y TF Text sub-team Minutes:

03 Apr 2012

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    John_Foliot, Judy, David_MacDonald, Janina, Leif, Joshue108,
Laura_Carlson, [IPcaller]
Regrets
Chair
    judy
Scribe
    JF, , David, Josh

Contents

    Topics
        additional coordination update on several text-alternatives change
proposals, and other pending issues
        issue 204: (a) response on aria 1.1 timeline in relation to html5,
and (b) specific 204 response clarification needed
        additional coordination update on several text-alternatives change
proposals, and other pending issues
        issue 30: expected next longdesc steps
        checking status of other issues pending longdesc resolution: issue
203, possibly 202
        meta-name generator (a) next CP steps; (b) core argument; (c)
discussing bugs
    Summary of Action Items

<JF> scribe: JF
additional coordination update on several text-alternatives change
proposals, and other pending issues

Janina: have determined a consensus with Objections of latest resolution

2 long-standing objections that were expected, and one comment about use of
word "confirm"

word-smithing issue rather than substantive issues

<laura> Hi Josh

Judy: that was more related to Item 2
issue 204: (a) response on aria 1.1 timeline in relation to html5, and (b)
specific 204 response clarification needed

Judy: we had pressed the Chairs on what to do to move along issue 30

clarification on timing issue was critical to Chairs

thus janina's processing of the resolution (for Issue 204 - ARIA 1.1 timing)

Judy: with regard to Issue 204

we believed that what we need is a no change CP

but it seems that the HTML5 spec and the ARIA spec are out of alignment

so there is a requirement to re-sync of the 2 specs

Janina: Sam pointed out a section 5.1.2 (impact of @hidden in HTML5) that
was out os sync

we are still working on these sections, so this is *hopefully* going to be
an easy [sic] process

Janina: hope to get a sense from other groups meeting this week (UAAG, PF,
etc.)

<David> scribe:

<David> Scribe: David

<Joshue108> JF: The issue around this is that it all has to do with the way
the a11y API is processing stuff thats not on screen. If we move stuff into
a <div> offscreen, that can be processed as flat text.

<Joshue108> JF: So if this is off screen, and flat as such you may not get
the structural stuff, so we recommend that you don't do it.

<Judy> scribe: Josh

<David> jf has to do with the way accessibility api handles off screen...if
we move to off screen... div... but it flattens... can use aria describedby
to point offscreenbut it is flattened

<Joshue108> JF: Can you rephrase that Janina?

<Joshue108> JS What I hear is that relating to 204 doesn't talk about
various aria described techs not working.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

<Joshue108> JF: If you look at that issue.. URL coming now

<Joshue108> JF: Reads issue..

<Joshue108> JF: So I'm frustrated that they don't know what they are
asking...

<Joshue108> JF: I'm explaining the issue, lots of hidden content that you
cant reference.

<Joshue108> JS: Ok, but our responses on 204 need to focus on aria-hidden
etc.

<Joshue108> +q

<Joshue108> JF: Is this aria-hidden or @hidden?

<Joshue108> JS: aria-hidden, this relates to an expemption for aria in 204

<Judy> scribe: David

<scribe> scribe: David

jf the issue with 204 is it says that as an h2 on the page, aria-hidden...
aria is out of scope... for html group

<laura> John's CP:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIA_Can_Only_Refer_To_Hidden
_Content_With_Specific_Restrictions

janina: Sam is looking for html to say something different from what aria
says... that's it... nothing more

jf: i understand that 204 rerers to aria described by offscreen... no
distinction... both @hidden, aria-hidden supposed to map to the same
accessibility api..

josh... as WCAG-PF ARIa techniques group... we talked about techniques
relating to this... for WCAG technique... could john and laura put something
together, because you are familiar what you want... we don't know as well
what you want...

josh... maybe we're over reaching a bit... originally longdesc... just for
blind, now it's extanding, risk being poorly helping everybody

judy: important question.. right now would not spend a lot of effort on
details of techniques... need to get it right in the spec first before
elaborating on it. applies to 204 and meta etc..

<Joshue108> +1 to Judy

<JF> Scribe: JF

<Joshue108> +q

Janina: We need to stick to simple things to say

Issue 204 is a distraction, but needs to be answered

<janina> David, I think this is described in our minutes from last Tuesday's
call

Judy: JF and Janina to take Issue 204 off list for further discussion

may need to find an author to write that, to deal with the process issue

Judy: to a comment from Josh - if people have techniques ideas for
HTML5/WCAG please send contributions to that group
additional coordination update on several text-alternatives change
proposals, and other pending issues

<Joshue108> Please send tech ideas etc to the html-techs-tf list and/or ping
me

Judy: coordination meetings with 2 of the Chairs (1 on vacation), to discuss
when things got confusing (re: Process)

met for the past 2 weeks on Mondays (1 hour)

looking at sequence of issues in depth, including @longdesc and the Issue
204 survey

also meta name generator, and how @alt text is dealt with

then <canvas>

outcomes are very specific actions (clarifications, CP's etc.) so that they
(the chairs) can process their work queue

this may seem counter intuitive at times, but helps get clarity

<Joshue108> -q
issue 30: expected next longdesc steps

Judy: due to Issue 204, it must be closed before we can take up Issue 30

so next step time-wise is to address 204 as simply as possible, after which
Issue 30 will be taken up

so request is to "hang on"

JF: any indication of a date at all?

Judy: is directly tied to Issue 204

the only way out is through...
checking status of other issues pending longdesc resolution: issue 203,
possibly 202

Judy: Issue 203 - this is a quick thing (I think) which was missed Monday

but it close(d) midnight Monday

<David> scribe: David

jb: process wise.. we haven't broached idea of dependency delay but is worth
talking about (dependent on Issue 30)

jf: can we move forward without an aria solution.... need an accessible name
to the video ... traditional was the alt but can't put that on video... but
aria provides short description... need a long text image for the poster...
would look like described at
... dsome want to put transcript and desciption of the poster together... no
native solution in html5... we can do aria label, labeled by... long term
onscreen could use described by

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask whether we have a non-ARIA alternative for
203?

janina: if we get longdesc back , we couldn't put 2 longdesc on the same
element there fore need another attribute

jb: needs to depend on longdesc for now, and then queue this up for aria 1.1
for more evolved version

jf: i couldn't give details on 203 because of dependencies, chairs did not
accept that...

<laura> I have to drop off the call. Bye.

<JF> scribe: JF

<Joshue108> I also have to drop off, good call. Bye.

<David> jb: let's follow this up offline... we'll raise the issue of
dependency delay
meta-name generator (a) next CP steps; (b) core argument; (c) discussing
bugs

Judy: a) meta name generator - want to thank Laura for setting up a wiki for
working on that issue

have a bunch of details in "my head" which will be added by this time next
week

there were comments w.r.t. weighting of arguments, were as others wer flat
wrong

so a new CP will focus on core argument, and focus on the larger issue

some of the assertions of the original CP are unverified themselves

so we need to assert that despite what others might think, you *can* add
@alt text inside of a CMS, and the need for sensible @alt text has never
gone away

Judy: hope to review 2 open bugs, to see if 1 of the bugs might derail or
cause damage

<LeifHSilli> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16572

<LeifHSilli> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16126

better to address now rather than later

Leif: think that both are essentially the same, however the first is/was
filed against the validator

the idea is that the validator should be able to notify the author, despite
the metagenerator string, alt text is not checked

Judy: on the validator bug, if the problem is that it should be addressed in
the valdiator warning that @alt text was not checked, isn't that making an
excuse?

if ALT isn't there, it sholdn't conform

+Q

David: it would be totally against WCAG 2

can't see how we can endorse something like that

we represent people with disabilities, and this is counter to their needs

Leif: HTML5 already says that if there is a metagenerator, and if alt is not
used correctly, then the document is not conforming

The problem is not that the doc isn't non-conforming, it is that the
Validator is not issuing a failure notice

David" we want to make it as "Painful" as possible when authors don't
provide alt text

Leif: not sure difference between warning and error

what I am proposing is that the validator is weak - it doesn't impact on
anything

Judy: the metagenerator shouldn't affect the error message

<David> scribe: David

jf: the problem is... errors are more substantive than warning... errors are
a STOP... warnings are not as strong... a validator is a user agent...it's
living a pass... theyshould get validator fixed

<JF> Judy: I think I better understand where Leif's comments are coming from

<JF> would like to look at the second bug

jf: appreciate that there is a validator tie in... let's look at the next
bug...

<JF> scribe: JF

Second bug sounds like a complete excuse to the author

Leif: if the editor inserts a generator string, then the validator must
indicate that @alt conformance was not checked

I don't completely agree with Judy's perspective

David: want to refocus on why we exist as a group, to make the web more
accessible

others can argue against accessibility, we want to make sure that
conformance checkers make things accessible

if a validator skips a chunk of code, webmasters will not go check

it is unhelpful to creating a good culture

Judy: if we are attempting to fix the core issue, why present "fallback"
ideas?

meta name generator shouldn't stop a conformance checker, and so suggesting
that if it does, it should warn the author presumes that a conformance
checker might not be checking for @alt

which is what is broken

Leif: do you plan to say that if a Validator does not warn the author then
nothing be said?

Judy: we could provide advice on what the Validator messages would be
appropriate

David: we seem to be arguing against ourselves with these 2 bugs

Leif: this is a compromise proposal if we don't succeed

Judy: we cannot accept for a compromise here

this is the needs of specific users

<janina> I'm sorry, I need to go now

David: concern that we are having a discordant voice here

Leif: I will need to reflect on this, I did not realize it was such a
problem

<LeifHSilli> I have withdrawn my bygs.

Judy: thanks all, we didn't get to everything, but we are scheduled to meet
next week
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 18:43:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:57 GMT