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

Re: Text Subteam Minutes for 8 May

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:55:39 +1000
Message-Id: <FFDDAE41-F553-4FF4-B23D-9ED07866A5C5@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>


On 09/05/2012, at 7:25 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Minutes for the HTML-A11Y Task Force Text Subteam teleconference of 8
> May are provided below as text and are available as hypertext at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/05/08-text-minutes.html
> 
> 
>   W3C
> 
>                                                           - DRAFT -
> 
>                                             HTML-A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group
> 
> 08 May 2012
> 
>   See also: IRC log
> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>          John_Foliot, judy, David_MacDonald, Laura_Carlson, Janina
> 
>   Regrets
>   Chair
>          Janina
> 
>   Scribe
>          David
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * Topics
>         1. Issue 31c: "Generator Exception" Transmitted to H5CCs
>            http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator
>         2. Issue 194 Update, Video Transcript: deadline is Friday 11 May
>         3. Issue 204 Developments, ARIA Hidden:
>         4. Issue 31b, Buggy Alts & Guidance: next steps
>     * Summary of Action Items
>     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
>   Hi... phone says conference restricted... it's 2119 Right?
> 
>   <scribe> scribe: David
> 
> Issue 31c: "Generator Exception" Transmitted to H5CCs http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator
> 
>   H5CCs have not read 31c yet; we expect to hear back by next monday
> 
>   JB: expect reopen or feedback on proposal, not an explanation why they are not reopening
> 
> Issue 194 Update, Video Transcript: deadline is Friday 11 May
> 
>   <JF> Issue 194?
> 
>   Janina, discussion at face to face
> 
>   jf: F to F discussion, no debate that it is a requirement. some concern about @transcript, kind of a proxy for LONGDESC
>   almost... convinced them that the no change proposal is unacceptable. .. but could discuss other solutions. .. maybe go
>   the direction off IDREF... JF things it might be clunky... will explore expanding traack
> 
>   to include @kind Transcript
> 
>   same contextual menu already used in Subtitle and caption... many people liked it... contextual menu open to all users,
>   no onscreen encombrance like a 'D' link... some argement that there should be a link on the page... JF will write it
>   up... will ping sean hayes,
> 
>   possible that transcripts could use timestamps but expect documents
> 
>   <JF> @kind="metadata" is not defined to take time-stamped files


That is wrong. All <track> resources require time-stamped content. Why do you believe otherwise?

Overloading track is not the right thing to do from a data structure. POV. We have to find another solution.

Regards,

Silvia.


>   Janina, I think Cynthia described timed experimenting already happening. ...
> 
>   jf: feels greater that metadata does not require timed data
> 
>   janina, expect the case where there is none and where there is timestamps.
> 
> Issue 204 Developments, ARIA Hidden:
> 
>   much progress. .. so chairs suggested we get into 204 ...
> 
>   heard chairs say that change restricted UAs development in the future
> 
>   Janina: could we not change it.... APPLE think they could build DewcribedBY with semantics etc
> 
>   we should not restrict them
> 
>   jf: we removed restriction on browsers, general consensus that we should not do that
>   ... useful for authors to hide bits of text offscreen it's when hiding lots of it.... RFC2119 says should exist good
>   reason for ignoring content
>   ... so this is the best advice we can give
> 
>   <laura> John, thank you for disentangling the proposed the draft revisions from the accessibilty task force concensus
>   change proposal.
> 
>   jf: this is the best win we can get... we got together and felt it was good, ted, o'conner, JF, and cynthia, didn't
>   save as version of a there ...
> 
>   <laura> It seems that we lost two important items: 1. Benjamin's example. and 2. Johns's note regarding length of
>   text:.
> 
>   laura: we lost Benjamen's example, and length of text
> 
>   JF: soe comments that this is more authoring guidance
> 
>   <laura> example:<input id=f type=checkbox checked>
> 
>   <laura> <label hidden for=f>
> 
>   <laura> I do <strong>not</strong> want to receive marketing materials.
> 
>   <laura> </label>
> 
>   jf: most authors won't go through HTML 5 for accessibility guidance, most will go to WCAG
>   ... when we left the room Friday, we had a good quarum, and amicable resolution on 204
>   ... we have conformance issues such as not using headings, links, etc...
> 
>   so 204 should affect 30
> 
>   laura: concern that it will compromise 30
> 
>   janina: describedby is not on the table, anymore for long or structured text, so Longdesc will be the only answer
> 
>   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that this is not what is being said (lack of support)
> 
>   I think new language puts us in a good place
> 
>   jf: fruitful progress
> 
>   jb: have these explanations helped address concerns Laura?
>   ... i'm finding explanations satisfactory?
> 
>   Laura: yes they address my concerns so far, I haven't read the document in detail
> 
>   jf: we extracted a few things, and have that captured, I can send that to you... we removed two paragraphs and code
>   example,
> 
>   janina: can you send that to the list
> 
>   I cleaned up my spelling and grammar
> 
>   in the issue, but nothing else
> 
>   jf: leif added a border, mathew fixed a link. ... minor changes
> 
>   janina: can we have a 48 hour (or 72 hr) consensus email
> 
>   later this week
> 
>   <JF> I will send out an email to the list that outlines the changes we made to the V3 edits
> 
>   <JF> essentially removing the statements that browsers shouldn't create accessible objects, the addition of RFC 2119
>   SHOULD NOT language, and the removal of the code example
> 
>   resolution: johnwill put out list changes Version 2 to 3, a 48 hour consensus email.
> 
> Issue 31b, Buggy Alts & Guidance: next steps
> 
>   <laura> I have to drop off the call now
> 
>   Janina, good summary of issues that David has presented...
> 
>   we should tag in a table... a column... remaining columns to pointers... anchor refs... to keep the start statements...
>   we have a list of bugs for ones that were never filed...
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>   [End of minutes]
>     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Found Scribe: David
> Inddferring ScribeNick: David
> ddDefault Present: John_Foliot, judy, David_MacDonald, Laura_Carlson, Janina
> Present: John_Foliot judy David_MacDonald Laura_Carlson Janina
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka,    Phone:    +1.443.300.2200
>        sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 
> 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 Thursday, 10 May 2012 03:35:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 03:35:47 GMT