- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:17:07 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
aloha! since there were only 3 of us in attendance at today's caucus, what resulted was an informal discussion of the status of HTML Issues and thought-exercises; what minutes there are are logged at: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-html-a11y-minutes.html and http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-html-a11y-irc and as plain text following my signature -- as usual, any corrections, clarifications, comments and the like should be logged by replying-to this announcement on-list... note, too, that you can review past HTML Caucus meetings' minutes and find out more about participation in the HTML Caucus by visiting: http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/Caucus gregory. _________________________________________________________________ - DRAFT - HTML Issues Caucus 23 Jan 2009 Agenda:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2009JanMar/0139.html See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-pf-irc] Attendees Present Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O_Connor, Gregory_Rosmaita Regrets Laura_Carlson, Steve_Faulkner Chair Janina_Sajka Scribe oedipus Contents * Topics 1. News & Updates 2. Table Headers * Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________________ Previous HTML issues caucus: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/16-pf-minutes Special Meeting on alt in HTML5: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/21-cg-minutes.html News & Updates GJR: img - images [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#img] alt marked with a question mark; no long descriptor; common.attrs.aria also marked with question mark [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#common.attrs.aria] from new "Markup Spec" JS: don't have critical mass ... from wednesday, think majority opinion is "don't drop alt" but chairs and staff not too enthused; remove from validation to another criteria ... MCooper's paper supposed to be an articulation of that <janina> http://www.w3.org/2009/01/accessibility-spec-roles.html JOC: like to make a few points ... can understand GV and LR's points about validation, but strong argument for having a benchmark that needs to be met; alt is an answer -- not the best, but an answer; if devs don't have to consider @alt, they won't ... education and outreach necessary JS: you hit it on the nail during the conference; a policy desicion as much as anything else; is technology in core of technologies or developed on the side -- need to come back to that question GJR: core essential JS: GV's point is make criterion accessibility not validity JOC: mapping needs to be more explicit for page to validate GJR: a valid page isn't necessarily an accessible page, but an accessible page's foundation is validity JOC: grey area? ... can see cases on both sides img - images [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#img] alt marked with a question mark; no long descriptor; common.attrs.aria also marked with question mark [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/markup-spec/#common.attrs.aria] GJR: need a terse descriptor and a facillity for long description in IMG <Joshue> JOC: But is alt not already a terse descriptor? GJR: wary of HTML pushing off responsibility for a11y to ARIA <Joshue> JOC: +1 to GJR GJR: redundancy isn't a bad thing - have first native support, then fine tuning for ARIA <Joshue> JOC: Maybe that explains why @summary etc is getting the chop. <Joshue> JOC: Partially anyway JS: in validation process would do either or for IMG - seems to be tenable ... what does UA do with that GJR: passes it on to the local a11y API to be rendered in appropriate manner, as per UAAG JS: use case where ARIA as repair fails or is unfeasable/unsupported, still need fallback provided by native semantics scribe's note: this was not so much a meeting, but a brain-storming session Table Headers JS: progress seems to be good JOC: @summary - don't get objection JS: poll? JOC: not sure if poll going to run GJR: this is a clear case of where we need to take a stand and ask them why was it removed, and what exactly will replace it? ... CAPTION is a "header" for a TABLE; @summary is a long description of the table to orient and prepare the user <Joshue> JOC: I also think a poll is kinda pointless. <Joshue> JOC: +1 to Janina JOC: ARIA is going to be made to supply gap left by removal of @summary ... proper usage of @summary is well documented; ... ARIA not backwards compatible; older UAs and ATs will be looking for @summary @alt etc. <Joshue> JOC: Thats a great point <Joshue> JOC: It seemed to bypass the deprecated stage and just reach a status of 'Absent' JS: backwards compatibility -- usual practice in standards organizations of any type -- when want to deprecate, don't throw out, but mark as deprecated, bring in the new, and warn that will be made obsolete ... if i am right that HTML WG trying to enhance relevance of spec, have to be sensible about backwards compatibility -- a small step for users, not a giant leap for humankind JOC: WHAT WG bypassed deprecated stage when deconstructing HTML 4.01 <Joshue> JOC: Is that a breach of protocol? JS: unusual in standards practice if something is being used where people are paying attention to accessibility, need to support deprecated items until new solutions reach a critical mass <Joshue> JOC: Would you want to flag that to HTML as a potential issue? JS: will be pinging HTML WG chairs about status of 3 top issues at this time: @summary, @alt, and @headers ... new co-chair has more experience in collaborative specification development <Joshue> JOC: Accessibility needs to stay native JS: is it ok to do accessibility as something other than validation or something integrated into the native languages JOC: stress tight mapping between validity and accessibility Summary of Action Items [End of minutes] _________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 17:17:57 UTC