- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <025a01cb2468$eb7d5790$c27806b0$@edu>
The minutes of the Jul 15 HTML-A11y TF Weekly teleconference are available
below and at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-minutes.html
*******************
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15 Jul 2010
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Janina, Michael_Cooper, kliehm,
MikeSmith, Ben_Caldwell, Gregory_Rosmaita, Rich, paulc,
MikeSmithX
Regrets
Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, Kenny_Johar, Denis_Boudreau
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
John_Foliot
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]SubTeam Reports
2. [5]TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning
3. [6]TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with
the other
4. [7]Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 15 July 2010
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> agenda: this
<inserted> scribe: John_Foliot
<inserted> scribenick: JF
<scribe> JF
<paulc> I am still booting up and will join by phone ASAP.
Actions Review Mike C: there is some Canvas Actions what shouel we
do?
Janina - await Steve F & Rich S to join the call
Action 22
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<MichaelC> action-22 due 1 Nov
<trackbot> ACTION-22 Organize joint discussion of testing task force
and html a11y task force due date now 1 Nov
Advance to Nov 1 and turn into Tech Pleneray issue
Action-44
Mike C: is this an actual action item, or just a reminder
?
<MichaelC> close action-44
<trackbot> ACTION-44 - monitor status of @alt in HTML5 spec; when
SteveF's Alt Guidance is published, ensure that what is in SteveF's
note supersedes or corrects HTML5 verbiage; propose changes to HTML5
based on SteveF's alt doc closed
shouold we close it as an action?
agreed
ACTION-46
<MichaelC> close action-46
<trackbot> ACTION-46 Work with WAI UAWG to find home for "image
analysis heuristics" text from HTML5 spec (HTML WG issue 66) closed
2
Steve F has a number of actions assigned - will wait for him to join
us or defer
3 open actions re: Canvas
<MichaelC> close action-12
<trackbot> ACTION-12 Ensure there is a dependency between the HTML5
specification and the HTML 5 2D Context specification to ensure that
the author has the ability to set the visible focus, for <canvas>,
to ensure that a magnifier may follow the visual focus. This would
be driven by the shadow DOM. closed
Rich: is this group just handling HTML, or is it looking at media
queries, etc.?
Greg: believes it should be in the PFWG
we should discuss coordination with them
RichL HTML spec suggests do whateve the media queries says
Eric: would like to be involved in that effort as well
<MichaelC> close action-17
<trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for
alternative content selection closed
Actions section completed
<MichaelC> action-17: migrated to PF ACTION-692
[9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/692
[9] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/692
<trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for
alternative content selection notes added
<MichaelC> close action-19
<trackbot> ACTION-19 Work with the Canvas API subteam to include and
API for caret tracking that drive magnfication closed
SubTeam Reports
<oedipus> rich, there was a thread on changing the media group
tactile to have 2 media types tactual (non-natural language based
tactile images) and braille (natural language based tactile output)
-- gottfried (i think) and i had an exchange on it and janina liked
the idea but thought the verbiage was too confusing -- will
follow-up via email
<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus
JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements
into technical requirements
... worked thorugh 50% of requirements
... encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer
feedback and comments as things progress
... need to have technical requirements and user requirements stable
enough to advance to the HTML WG next week -- perhaps 10 days left
before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain
<inserted> scribenick: JF
Thanks to Greg
Steve F on ARIA mappings
not much has happened in the past week
have already provided a change proposal and a bug
HTML chairs have requested bug be expedited
Janina: wants to know about the change Proposal
now that we have a bug, se should now have an agenda item to vote a
resolution to advance the change proposal
spec text exists, but what is need is feedback and consensus around
the change proposal
SteveF asking about getting a poll around this
Janina: appears process is sticking point - work is ready
can we bring this work to the group for next week?
SteveF: what does this entail?
Janina: should we run a survey on this?
SteveF: makes it a more formal 'support' from the TF
hopefully people will read the proposal before voting - not yet had
any response on the draft change propsal
SteveF: suggests overall question: after reviewing the changes, do
you support them?
are there more than one question to be asked here?
Rich: everything is in the proposal, (needs some minor edits)
SteveF: we want people to review the text we choose to replace,
based upon the proposal
PaulC: not sure if a survey is the best forum for that
question/decision
<oedipus> strong plus 1 to CfC
likely could happen via emails
<oedipus> make TF members read the text before commenting
Rich: reason for suggesting a poll is that if people have an issue
with a certain section they could highlight
Janina: this could be highly granular quickly
SteveF: the main thrust is that the current starting point is whlely
unsuitable in the current spec
what we don't want to get into is a point-by-point comparrison
but rather seeks an alternative starting point
it goes to philosphy more than actual text
Do we support an approach that suggests that ARIA does not introduce
a confromance issue
Janina: lets keep it simple
SteveF: we have already put it out for comment, thinks a Chair
should ask for 'closure'
Janina: Discussion on remaining deliverables and time-lines
TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning
talking about TPAC as a deadline
some discussion that this might slip slightly
but we are targetting to be comple in this calendar year
ARIA, drag-n-drop...
does anyone think that DnD have issues that will stall beyond year
end
the 1 or 2 others are media a11y
and the other is "accesskey"
perhaps looking at a name-change
to access-command
what PF will be forwarding is a set of user requirements
<oedipus> GJR notes that these are set of requirements for
satisfying navigational requirements, not on specific attributes or
elements -- those will be decided upon by TF
with no recommendation on *how* it is to be met
expect work to start on that within the week
anyone have any thoughts on what work will entail? anyone see a
reason why this cannot be completed by end of October?
Greg: have started to take what is in HTML5 re: accesskey to see
what (if anything) is lacking
will report back to Tf
looking at accesskey, tabindex and command
this is what is in, this is what is out, and can it (they) meet the
requirements
Greg: I beleive we can get this done and fixed
SteveF: what happens with the whole text alternatives issue
Janina: that is still on the agenda
while we still have deliverables, the only one we are not sure we
can deliver in time for TPAC is the media issue
everything else appears on target
MikeS: want to mention about DragnDrop that we have seen some
feedback
<Zakim> MikeSmithX, you wanted to note that we got feedback from Gez
on drag-and-drop
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/005
6.html
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0056.html
Janina: Task Force at TPAC - hoping to get this group together then
and there
depends on our agenda at that point
<oedipus> i/SubTeam reports/TOPIC: SubTeam Reports/
Next: CAPTCHA survey
Janina: this has been discussed, and this might be resolving itself
through changes in the spec
Greg: I think we need to keep an eye on this, and if it is out of
the next 2 publications, we can rest easy
keep in our back pocket
TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with the other
Discussion now: we as TF need to become a little more formal about
our recommendations to the WG
we have already sent a number up, and are in process at the WG
encourage all to continue to work on these issues at the higher WG
level
if there is a survey we can continue to particpate
Janina: we should discuss how to track these proposals now
we have a responsibility to follow through and tracking our
recommendations
is the wiki sufficient to track these issues?
SteveF: Laura has been asking about some ARIA attributes and
feedback
on the list, with little feedback outside of SteveF
<oedipus> SteveF post "rationale for role=presentation"
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/005
9.html
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0059.html
SteveF thinks however that ARIA-labeledby is not appropriate
and provided his rationale
laura is still looking for other rationales as this is/was a request
from the chairs
correction: aria-label is under question, not labeledby
Greg: the text in the spec is not in line with discussion. believes
that it needs to be naked attributes without the aria prefix
JF: why?
Greg: believes there are a number of aria properties should be
non-prefixed in the spec
<oedipus> JF: saying primary reason to remove prefix is
ease-of-authoring? no matter what we call is secondary to
functionality needed
<oedipus> JF: have aria deployed today -- in effect, abandoning
something trying to establish
<oedipus> JF: could introduce confusion
<oedipus> JF: GJR saying change name of attribute -- but already
have implementation into new name with aria- prefix
<oedipus> JF: less author confusion with aria- prefix
<oedipus> JF: get GJR's rationale, but flip side of coin is need to
say "don't forget to do these things" and here is how
<oedipus> JF: worried that opening a huge new can of worms -- aria-
prefix allows us to advance them all forward -- don't want to go
down a rathole
<oedipus> JS: if make change, have to pull back rec and go with
another one - could be politically problematic
<eric_carlson> +1 !
SteveF: agrees with JF
<oedipus> SF: advises gregory to bring up in TF
What material changes with the name change?
Greg: aria-* carries a weight with it. what does it mean to the
average developer
we need to ensure that things remain backward compatable
if @alt is going to be deprecated or made obsolete then we need to
ensure native attributes
SteveF: nobody is suggesting to make ALT obsolete, but rather we want
to provide additional means of achieving the end goal
it's about increased choice, not change
Greg: believes that the WG has been putting up barriers for ARIA
adoption, and so wants things to be modular
Janina: if we send a rec forward, and then decide later that it is
not correct, we lose cred
Janina: this group voted out the ALT text issue a few weeks back
<oedipus> GJR also doesn't want ARIA "frozen" at 1.0 in HTML5
there was a rationale for labeled a few weeks back
SteveF: Laura keeps asking for that rationale, and it has not come
forward
... it is more than just a name-change, it is about introducing
something new to HTML5
Greg: feels that use of ARIA in HTML5 that is not native is a kludge
SteveF: user agents can be encouraged to provide equiv.
functionality to user as well
Janina: must cut this short as it is the top of hour. Does anyone
else want to re-visit this guidance?
suggest moving this discussion onto the list for further follow-up
Suggests making follow-ups on status of recommendations as part of
weekly agenda - seems to have met approval
Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal
final item - how to follow up on outstanding open bugs
Mike C and Laura logical bug shepherds, but looking for other
volunteers
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 21:59:58 UTC