W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

minutes: HTML Accessibility TF telecon 2010-08-12 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:36:40 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100812163527.M6332@hicom.net>

minutes from the 12 August 2010 HTML A11y Task Force Telecon are 
available as hypertext from:


as an irc log at:


and as plain text following my signature -- as usual, please log any
errors, omissions, mis-attributions, clarifications and the like by
replying-to this announcement on list...

TF members are reminded that there is an HTML WG survey whose deadline
is 19 August 2010 -- you can fill out the survey entitled "change ARIA 
section title and add extra text about use of ARIA - Straw Poll for 
Objections" at the following URI:


if you want to take the pulse of replies to this poll, consult:


however, as of the typing of this announcement, there were no results
yet logged...

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of
focus.                                           -- Mark Twain
Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net
   Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
          Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus


                               - DRAFT -

                           HTML-A11Y telecon

12 Aug 2010


   See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-html-a11y-irc


          Eric, John_Foliot, kliehm, Gregory_Rosmaita, Denis_Boudreau,
          Janina, Ben_Caldwell, Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, paulc,
          Steve_Faulkner, Jim_Allan_(IRC_only)

          Laura_Carlson, Sylvia_Pfieffer, Kenny_Johar, Leif_Halvard_Silli




     * Topics
         1. Preliminaries
         2. Action Items Review
         3. Actions Review
         4. Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug
         5. TF Recommendations Followup:
     * Summary of Action Items

   <dboudreau> my point of view is I'll go for a non-valid docuemnt if
   I ever need the longdesc attribute in some page

   <eric_carlson> thanks Zakim!

   <janina> agenda: this

   <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Scribe_List

   <scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> scribenick: oedipus


   JS: MikeSmith will chair next 2 meetings

Action Items Review

   <paulc> Sorry I am late, drove 560km this morning

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open


   <trackbot> ACTION-47 -- Steve Faulkner to file a bug with HTML 5
   about making autocomplete consistent with ARIA, per comment 289
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/comments/update?comment_id=289 --
   due 2010-07-29 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/47


   <trackbot> ACTION-50 -- Janina Sajka to add some introductory text
   to requirement docs clarifying that these are user requirements, not
   necessarily UA requirements -- due 2010-07-08 -- CLOSED

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/50

Actions Review

   CS: Steve and I worked on draft to update the change proposal based
   on feedback from MJS -- came up with list of things, RS and i sent
   text to steve to integrate -- thought would be available today, but
   haven't yet seen it
   ... have tuesday meeting next week to review
   ... hope is will be able to bring to TF next thrusday and then to WG
   and then for review for 2 to 3 weeks by HTML WG

   JS: good plan

   CS: will probably be discussed in HTML WG telecon next hour

Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug Triage

   <kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

   JS: Canvas: no action; heard from Cynthia about mapping - hope to
   move revised rationale in this meeting next week
   ... drag and drop stuck due to vacations

   JF: media -- very productive conference calls for last few weeks --
   very in depth conversation of particular points -- at point where
   believe had req docuemtn that is complete -- please review if
   haven't looked at or checked recently -- think haev done our due

   JS: still waiting for a couple of additions from JudyB

   JF: yes, but most of intent has been succesfully captured
   ... next step: proposals emerging -- action-50 is create a matrix or
   grid to list technical reqs as agnostically as possible --
   identified key things, capture as tech req, assign priority to it to
   help guide development and keep discussion focused and on track
   ... document has rough outline in my head -- took on action-50 to
   get together for end of the month
   ... will probably get most work done when on vacation

   JS: expectation for matrix -- view of what type of technologies are
   needed to satifisfy user reqs we identified
   ... cannot rely on exissting containers to handle synchronization --
   have to support 3rd party for sign language as primary track -- very

   JF: asynchronous synchronization -- how to insert a 20 minute
   description into a 10 minute clip; processing media content is
   complex, but no native way for container to do that -- one of issues

   JS: proofs-of-concepts based on user requirements -- some have been
   around for years

TF Recommendations Followup:



   MK: list of bugs -- 41 -- others are not important enough or don't
   meet reqs - some can be followed up by individuals and not TF
   ... will have telecon next tuesday to examine remaining 21

   JS: very good news -- thanks for helping progress that issue

   JS: decision from HTML WG chairs regarding HTML WG Issue-30

   <dboudreau> i will contribute to the formal objection... trying to
   see if I need to object myself or simply support someone else's

   JS: JF posted intent to object and others have signed up -- i am
   composing email response -- did not see direct response to the
   TF/PF/WAI Consensus recs on @alt; some additional issues as well
   ... please keep discussion constructive -- bottom line is that have
   requirement that can't be satisfied -- there are implementations out
   there -- Oracle already indicated that it uses longdesc everytime
   there is a screen shot
   ... what may have gotten lost is requirement for a verbose
   descriptor without replacement

   <kliehm> I have a longdesc on this party flyer - feel free to use it
   as a use case: http://bembelterror.de/frankfurt/bday-2007

   JS: can do better than longdesc mechanism from HTML 4.01 but perhaps
   not under HTML WG timelines
   ... re-read WAI Consensus rec -- missing is ability to reference
   verbose descriptor either an extrernal file (longdesc) or if
   description in same doc as image can use aria-describedby
   ... ARIA 2.0 to do item is to make aria-describedby capable of
   referencing an external as well as internal resource

   JF: my question: is this TF going to support a formal objection?

   <dboudreau> bottom line, we need a mechanism allowing to come up
   with a structured description for a complex image. Can we consider
   working on something else or should we fight for @longdesc?

   JF: i've already personally committed to launching formal objection
   -- intend to follow through on this as individual -- non-W3C
   communication from a chair that dismissively comments on capacities
   and capabilities of HTML A11y TF -- that's another issue for another
   space, but i will formally object
   ... if HTML A11y TF wants to persue further, will work with TF
   members on formal objection, but if my tack is different from TF's
   will file as individual
   ... what should be the next step?

   PC: understand why TF takes position -- if 1 chair has to present
   formal objection to director, much better if supporters are clearly
   identified -- encourage formal objection to list individuals and
   orgs that support it

   <dboudreau> Paul does this mean that without a support from browser
   vendors, the formal objection wouldn't hold much chance of being

   JS: on process of TF -- part of HTML WG and part of PFWG -- may be
   better for WAI iteself to raise objection -- still on tabel -- more
   i look at it, more concerned i am -- very primary req
   ... possible that there will be formal objection from inside WAI --
   possibly PF -- reference guidance this TF provided -- approx 76%
   approval via WBS
   ... people did what should do in HTML40 and WCAG20 and we don't have
   a next step without longdesc

   JF: concern: if use longdesc in fully conforming HTML5 doc only
   problem is can't validate -- works in browsers with native longdesc
   support -- can get longdesc using Opera and FireFox
   ... now have 2 of four/five major browsers provide native support
   for longdesc; will always be rendered by browsers that support HTML4
   ... chairs justifications completely missed the point
   ... comments about bad meta data and abuse of longdesc a canard

   CS: can we negotiate? don't want to spend political capital on

   JS: 2 statements -- are we still open to negotiation

   PC: w3c proccess should attempt to find solution that causes least
   amount of dissent; chairs chose what felt caused least amount of
   dissent -- best way to indicate we were wrong is to file formal
   objection which puts ball back in chairs' court -- can go back, look
   at formal objection to see if changes opinion -- other option is
   acknowledge formal objection and carry forward when talk to director
   coming OUT of last call -- going to LC is WG decision -- as c


   PC: might request expidited action from director -- haven't yet
   discussed with HTML WG co-chairs

   <JF> Q

   GJR: not about specific elements but about leaving use case/need for
   verbose descriptors referenceable externally or internaly not

   JF: when next heartbeat req?

   PC: chairs chose to attempt to get WDs published in june so could
   have another pub cycle before AC/TPAC meeting in november 2010 in
   lyons -- based only on chairs' discussion -- not consensus from WG

   JF: thanks -- helps logistically

   JS: bottom line: several strands of discontent -- bottom line is
   missing a key requirement (verbose descriptor) so question is what
   to tell those using longdesc and supporting longdesc -- anticipate a
   formal objection if not a couple of them

   <dboudreau> no we're not done

   JS: not done discussing by any means

   PC: as the co-chair who attends these meetings i will bring this
   forward -- best way to deal with TF-WG tension is to confront
   directly -- will carry message back to samR and MJS -- will also
   convey to them what i said with chair's hat on

   JS: will be joining WG call at top of hour

   PC: very possible that monday meeting agenda could be added to by
   Janina or Judy

   JS: appreciate PC's dedication to attending TF meetings

   PC: discussion on monday would be best way to discuss dissent

   JS: wanted to let others know that this is being addressed at the
   proper levels using the proper communications channels

   PC: agree with transparency
   ... chairs thread that dealt with this had 5 people on it -- me,
   SamR, MJS, PhL, and mikeTMsmith -- by copying mike thought could get
   TF input, but i see your point -- might have been better to
   distribute this more widely

   JS: MikeSmith is co-facillitator -- may not have been on his radar

   PC: JS your comment has merit

   [steve faulkner joins]

   SF: from report got back from meeting with cynthia and rich and
   chairs -- questions about whether we missed some mappings (fixed
   through addition) second part is developing reasoning behind changes
   in new text for spec
   ... in process of collating that -- will be adding to ChangeProposal
   wiki page providing additional detail we were asked for - should be
   available next week -- want to check a few things with RichS who is
   on vacation
   ... will be ready for review before next week's TF telecon

   CS: will we have a tuesday meeting?

   SF: yes
   ... will send out agenda for tuesday with link to updated docs

   JS: next week is week to get done

   SF: question: CS will you be on HTML WG call to pass message on?

   CS: Paul and i and Janina will be on WG call, so is covered

   PC: SF you are on vacation, so one of us can communicate status to


   <dboudreau> I guess some of us will discuss it further outside this

   CS: objection to longdesc more vociferous in this call than previous

   JS: biggest problem is that there isn't a substitute/replacement
   mechanism for providing verbose descriptors
   ... statistics may be skewed by longdesc maintained by corps and
   orgs behind a firewall
   ... this may not be the top priority but it is a fundamental

   CS: worried about perceptions of us reacting to this first rejection
   -- may come off as complianers

   <dboudreau> there are much more important issues to be discussed
   than longdesc but it becomes a priority if time is of the essence to

   <Stevef> ISSUE-109: change ARIA section title and add extra text
   about use of ARIA - Straw Poll for Objections

   <trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-109 failed, please let
   sysreq know about it


   JF: doesn't lessen it -- not religious on how to achieve, but need
   to achieve well-described functionality

   JS: short inline (alternative) text and more verbose description
   (external or internal, external can be pulled into doc to make

   <JF> q

   CS: not saying don't due, but there is a cost attached

   JF: cost attached to not doing as well

   JS: until have replacement, need to keep longdesc

   SF: please answer poll by 19 August 2010
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/ --
   doesn't go to heart of issue and contains some irrelevancies

   JS: every TF member is an HTML WG member, so please fill out survey
   cited by SteveF above

   <dboudreau> thanks all, take care

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 16:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC