W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2012

Minutes from the Weekly PF Teleconference on 22 August

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:24:19 -0400
To: WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120822212419.GA4483@sonata.rednote.net>
Posted to this list by resolution of PFWG at its weekly teleconference
on 22 August ...

   W3C

                                                           - DRAFT -

                                       Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference
                                                          22 Aug 2012

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Judy, Tim_Boland, Rich, ShaneM, Joseph_Scheuhammer, AlexQiangChen, Janina, Gottfried, Leonie

   Regrets
   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          Gottfried

Contents

     * Topics
         1. preview agenda with items from two minutes
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 22 August 2012

   <scribe> scribe: Gottfried

preview agenda with items from two minutes

   Janina: Core of this meeting is discussion on expedited formal objection on HTML issue-204

   <clown> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2012JulSep/0126.html

   (Judy reading Janina's latest updated wording of the proposal, for those who haven't received the mail yet)

   <richardschwerdtfe> Hi Judy

   Judy: Janina's version now addresses some of my concerns about more clearly specifying the procedural and the technical
   objection, but procedural could be primary with technical matters for reference.
   ... We may need to still tweak it a bit.

   Janina: What do you propose to change?

   Judy: Comments from other people?

   <clown> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2012JulSep/0126.html

   Rich: Issue with "hidden content"

   <ShaneM> wakim, who is here?

   Rich: The HTML WG redefined issue 204 in a different way than it was originally intended.
   ... The decision didn't address the original concern.

   Janina: To be allowed to reference hidden content.

   Rich: And they attempted to redefine the original ARIA spec.

   Judy: If there is such harm in this..., and the HTML WG didn't even answer the question... but that is not what I
   recalled.

   Janina: The core process concern is most important, even if we don't provide all technical details.
   ... We as PF are responsible for ARIA
   ... We need to protect its integrity.

   Judy: Their decision points to one of the change proposals, which does answer their original question.

   Janina: Not sure it would be helpful to make this point in the objection.

   Rich: Quotes "User Agents are encouraged to expose the full semantics of hidden="" elements to Assistive Technology
   when such elements are referenced from WAI-ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby=""
   ... This is such a vague statement

   Janina: This is the core of their redesign.

   Rich: This statement also introduces technical issues on user agent processing.

   Judy: My original concern was that the formal objection should speak clearly to someone who is not so much involved in
   this as we are
   ... Even if primary objection is procedural, you should also have a clear description of the technical problems.
   ... Tried to make this clear in prior discussions with Janina and Rich.
   ... Cleary describe the procedural objection, and provide technical details.
   ... Don't expect others to know ARIA from inside.
   ... Technically, the HTML-WG tries to make a redefinition of ARIA...
   ... for aria-describedby
   ... Redesign would completely change the spec. Make clear what they would be breaking.
   ... Current wording may not be sufficiently supportive for the procedural objection

   Rich: Straw poll survey?

   Judy: There are many reasons for making objections. Make it as clear as possible.

   Rich: Does W3C have policies about wgs interacting with each other?

   Judy: Not to this particular issue, to my knowledge.
   ... Formal objection with expedited appeal is what this about
   ... Not about how wg chairs communicate with each other

   Rich: Is there something in the W3C bylaws or similar that says that a wg cannot redefine the work of another wg?
   ... It is basically in our charter, may need some rewriting though
   ... We cannot cover all technical details in the objection

   Judy: Agreed. Provide high-level overview of what their decision would break. Just to motivate the importance of the
   procedural problem.
   ... Timing?

   Janina: We don't have a draft yet that is ready.

   Judy: You may be close though.

   Janina: What are the small changes that will get us there?
   ... Hopefully we don't have to wait until next Wed.

   Judy: How much of PF's active membership is here or has weighed in on this issue? Or within the next 6-12 hours?

   Janina: High percentage of PF is on the call. Some are on vacation. Online there was just one comment from Joseph, and
   more extensive ones from Judy.
   ... Does anyone object to this kind of formal objection to the HTML decision?

   (no objection)

   Judy: Can you reach those people who we haven't heard about?

   Janina: No - on vacation
   ... 3 people working on ARIA are on vacation right now
   ... If we waited for them, we will have to wait until Sep

   Rich: Cynthia doesn't attend the regular ARIA calls.
   ... Would have liked to hear from James Craig.

   Judy: So there are several people absent who are normally on ARIA calls?

   Rich: Yes

   Judy: I assume they are all representing implementers. Have a little concern here.

   Janina: There was a resolution on Monday.
   ... Michael and Joseph were on the Monday call. Michael supports this.

   Judy: Just asking because of his responsibility on process from the team side.
   ... Were there prior discussions with James Craig on this?

   Rich: I think Cynthia drafted the decision on 204.

   Janina: Our draft was more cautious than Cynthia's.

   Judy: She was drafting the change proposal, not the objection, right?

   Janina: Correct

   Rich: This would create two problems: If we accepted the change, we would fall back to working draft, and we could not
   make 508.

   Judy: Look at what HTML is relying on ARIA. HTML wg is also on time pressure, so this could be relevant to mention.

   Rich: My concerns are:
   ... 1. Re-implement browsers, would break CR.
   ... 2. Not possible to use ARIA to meet WCAG 2.0 compliance.
   ... Any company that wants to provide additional help information on a form element, needs our ARIA version.
   ... We could have this discussion for ARIA.next.

   Judy: I understand the level of damage. If you're doing this, you need text that is clear enough to support an
   expedited formal objection.

   Janina: What about appending this to the formal objection?

   Judy: You may want to have a paragraph in the objection that captures this.

   Does the PF wg approve the objection subject to Rich's edits?

   Judy: Who is on the call?
   ... Do people approve this in principal provided that additional copy editing will happen?

   Rich: Yes, i can do that.

   Janina: Any objection in principal?
   ... I hear no objection.
   ... So we will have additional copy editing on the draft objection as submitted. This will include more technical
   details on what is broken, and how ARIA works, and in terms of deployed applications.

   Judy: Janina, Rich and i should meet as early as possible on the changes.
   ... I would like to send some background email on this.
   ... Could Rich and i meet, and then send the result to Janina?
   ... Can we send individual pings to the people who are here?

   <janina> draft RESOLUTION: The PFWG formally objects to the HTML WG decision on Issue 204: ARIA-hidden, on

   <janina> both procedural and technical grounds, and requests expedited appeal of our

   <janina> objection.

   <ShaneM> +1

   <richardschwerdtfe> +1

   Janina's proposed resolution: 02both procedural and technical grounds, and requests expedited appeal of our01 objection

   <AlexQiangChen> +1

   +1

   <clown> +1

   <janina> +1

   <lwatson> +1

   RESOLUTION: The PFWG formally objects to the HTML WG decision on Issue 204: ARIA-hidden, on both procedural and
   technical grounds, and requests expedited appeal of our objection.

   Judy: You should get approval to make your minutes available to public space if you're going to be referring to them
   from the formal objection.

   Janina: Is there any issue with publishing these minutes and the minutes from the ARIA TF on Monday to xtech?

   Gottfried: We should have the opportunity for cleanup first, since i was quite in a hurry writing.

   Judy: I will clean up some of my comments as minuted.

   actions?

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

The Linux Foundation
Chair, Open Accessibility:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:24:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:24:53 GMT