W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2009

minutes: HTML A11y TF Telecon, 2009-01-23 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:17:07 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20091203171558.M5208@hicom.net>

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:




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:




                                   - DRAFT -

                              HTML Issues Caucus
                                  23 Jan 2009


   See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-pf-irc]


          Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O_Connor, Gregory_Rosmaita

          Laura_Carlson, Steve_Faulkner




     * 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:

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

   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
   ... 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

   GJR: need a terse descriptor and a facillity for long description in

   <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

   <Joshue> JOC: Partially anyway

   JS: in validation process would do either or for IMG - seems to be
   ... 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

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
   ... 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
   ... 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

   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

   <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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:27 UTC