- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:36:40 +0100
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
aloha!
minutes from the 12 August 2010 HTML A11y Task Force Telecon are
available as hypertext from:
http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an irc log at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-html-a11y-irc
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:
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/
if you want to take the pulse of replies to this poll, consult:
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/results
however, as of the typing of this announcement, there were no results
yet logged...
gregory.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0026.html
See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Eric, John_Foliot, kliehm, Gregory_Rosmaita, Denis_Boudreau,
Janina, Ben_Caldwell, Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, paulc,
Steve_Faulkner, Jim_Allan_(IRC_only)
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Sylvia_Pfieffer, Kenny_Johar, Leif_Halvard_Silli
Aurélien_Levy
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
Gregory_Rosmaita
Contents
* Topics
1. Preliminaries
2. Action Items Review
3. Actions Review
4. Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug
Triage
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
Preliminaries
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
ACTION-47?
<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
action-50?
<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
dilligence
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
important
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
identified
JS: proofs-of-concepts based on user requirements -- some have been
around for years
TF Recommendations Followup:
<kliehm>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Bugs_Awaiting_A11yTF_Keyword_Decision
<kliehm>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0013.html
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
(longdesc)
<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
heard?
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
longdesc
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
<JF>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
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
satisfied
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
a.s.a.p.
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
WG
FIVE MINUTE WARNING
<dboudreau> I guess some of us will discuss it further outside this
meeting
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
priority
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
react...
<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
<Stevef>
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/
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
internal)
<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