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

minutes: HTML5 Accessibility Task Force telecon 2010-03-11 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:14:33 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100311170441.M82914@hicom.net>

minutes from today's HTML5 Accessibility Task Force teleconference 
are available as hypertext at:


as an IRC log at:


and as plain text following my signature -- many thanks to SteveF 
for performing the bulk of the minutes; as usual, any clarifications, 
corrections, mis-attributions and the like should be logged by 
replying-to this announcement on-list...

please note that the HTML A11y TF will meet on 18 March 2010 -- 
at that meeting a decision will be taken as to whether or not to 
convene a TF telcon on 25 March 2010 (many TF members will be in 
attendence at CSUN during the week of 22-27 March 2010)

please also make note of the fact that the U.S. switches to Daylight 
Savings Time on 14 March 2010 -- this change will affect the start time 
of the TF teleconference, as W3C timing is synced with Eastern Standard 
Time; to find the time of the 18 March 2010 meetting in your time 
zone, please consult the TimeAndDate information provided at the 
following URI:


thank you, gregory. 

                                  - DRAFT -

                HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

11 Mar 2010


  See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-html-a11y-irc]


         Ben_Caldwell, Dick_Bulterman, Eric_Carlson, Geoff_Freed, 
         Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina, Matt, Michael_Cooper, Mike, 
         Mike_Barta, Rich, Stevef, paulc

         Kelly_Ford, Aurélien_Levy, Jon_Gunderson, Markku_Hakkinen, 
         Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon




    * Topics 
        1. decision on Canvas navsubstree proposal to HTML WG: 
        2. status of Canvas focuse proposal: 
        3. decision on Multitrack API proposal to HTML WG: 
        4. status of TextAssociations proposal: 
        5. f2f planning for April 6-7 meeting 
    * Summary of Action Items 

  <trackbot> Date: 11 March 2010


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

  <MichaelC> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

  <oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08)

  <oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08) 

  <MichaelC> agenda: 

  <MikeSmith> scribe: Stevef

decision on Canvas navsubstree proposal to HTML WG: 

  <oedipus> canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08) 

  Mike: navsubtree has greater agreement at this point, anyone object to 
  sending ot html wg for wider review

  <oedipus> discussion of ADom and imagemap approaches: 

  janina: will be couple of additional pieces coming later including 
  focus proposal


  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom

  <oedipus> rich's proposal email: 

  rich: 2 other proposals 1 focus and caret tracking and image map 2. 
  image map, need to work on with chaals,

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/12

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/19

  mike: record a resolution to put navsubtree proposal forward, and give 
  people 48 hours to object, but needs more wider discussion 
  ... will put in language for proposed resolution as placeholder until 

  <MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas 
  navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the 
  understanding that the a11y TF supports it principle and the related 
  proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion 
  and will be forthcoming.

  <oedipus> plus 1

  <richardschwerdtfe> +1

  <oedipus> plus 1 with removal of "in principle"

  <inserted> scribnick: oedipus

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  SF: Rich asking for change proposal for HTML WG wiki? this is spec 
  ready text, right?

  RS: Maciej said need justification for why we are doing it on the wiki

  <MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas 
  navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the 
  understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals 
  needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will 
  be brought to the HTML WG later.

  SF: i can create the necessary wiki page -- then get input required 
  for rationale

  MS: do need the wiki page, if you can volunteer, it would be great

  SF: will mock it up today

  RS: SteveF, you'll set up

  SF: yes -- will send URI to TF list -- need to reveiew rationale to 
  ensure has all required info

  RS: reveiw period?

  MS: 48 hours

  RS: ok

  MC: 48 hour period -- web based survey or call for objections on 
  mailing list

  <MikeSmith> RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas 
  navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the 
  understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals 
  needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will 
  be brought to the HTML WG later.

  MS: call for objections on list 
  ... action for SteveF to write up change proposal in way HTML WG 

status of Canvas focuse proposal: 

  <inserted> scribenick: Stevef

  mike: rich please update us

  <oedipus> RESOLVED: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree 
  proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the 
  understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals 
  needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will 
  be brought to the HTML WG later.

  Rich: 1 tried to be inline with 2d spec, merged caret/focus. and 
  maciej had same concern , asking to spereate caret out. bit in spec 
  about who draws focus ring waiting for clarification. will then write 
  proposal update, hopeing to have it ready in the next couple of weeks

  <oedipus> SF: need clarification from hixie

  <oedipus> RS: sent to maciej - first canvas implementation by apple

decision on Multitrack API proposal to HTML WG: 

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/multitrack-api/results

  mike: eric please summarise state of agreement

  eric: sylvia sent out a summary of things that need to be changed in 
  the spec in regards to multitrack api 
  ... believe it had consensus

  mike: to do resolution


  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/

  <MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the 
  Multitrack API proposal -- after Silvia makes the changes she outlined 
  by e-mail -- is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the 
  understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals 
  needed to fully resolve the related issue are still under discussion 
  and will be brought to the HTML WG later.


  <- Dick's message

  dick: minority opinion re tracks proposal, form our SMIL experienece, 
  things being merged, not particularly clean and locks into approach, 
  should decouple slection and synchronization, proposal doesn't handle 
  it cleanly, not a wise combination from SMIL experienec

  <- Philip's reply

  eric: i don't think we are too far down the path to change, if 
  something else makes more sens, maybe we hold of on sending to html wg 
  to discuss further

  <oedipus> plus 1 to eric

  janina: also would like discussion on TF call before sending to WG

  eric: hoped people who had an opinion would have jumped in on mailing 
  list discussion

  dick: will provide SMIL examples of approach, design philosophy 
  ... do not want to obstruct but think there are things current 
  proposal does not cover

  mike: more discussion is good, so go for it 
  ... better to take more mature proposal

  eric: issue will come up so need to talk more

  Mike: would be nice to expidite it and value in getting wider 
  ... will look at it start of next week status check

status of TextAssociations proposal: 

  mike: text association proposal, eric summary?

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/?

  eric: sylvia went through all emails, summarised issues that need to 
  eb addressed before we send to wider group, not a long list of changes



  mike: more discussion on formats is neceserry, will need to move file 
  formats from change request 
  ... some people won't support this

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations

  mike: we have a choice, the file formats part is what we don't have 
  agreement on, but sylvia thinks this won't happen soon, so remove from 
  ... anybody on the call today object from removing the formats section 
  for now?

  <oedipus> sylvia: "not clear what requirements would necessitate more 
  than just srt - I am planning on a separate discussion thread as soon 
  as the format survey is closed. For now we will probably need to 
  remove the section about file formats from the change request "

  eric: if we remove ot from the propsoal, have to have wording to say 
  why , with a goal to coming up with some format requirment as this 
  will never fly unless we have some sort of format reuirement

  <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/


  dick: formatting issue, what is mandated, needs to be a set of 
  requirements for short to middle term, other part of proposal from my 
  perspective links selection and synchronization together same problem 
  as previouys 
  ... many synchronization concerns glossed over, have these things been 
  talked about, are we interetsed in feedback?

  mike: does seem we have agreement that the requirements aren't clear, 
  what would neccesitate more than SRT, does not ste what format is 

  <oedipus> FWIW: strongly believe that the popularity of SRT is NOT a 
  reason for it to supersede other formats in HTML5; its widespread use 
  warrants consideration for its inclusion but NOT at the expense of 
  other formats -- especially SmilText -- which support advanced 
  text-display features which are NOT part of SRT

  mike: if we do remove then put disclaimer in to say that this cannot 
  be implemented unless we decide on formats. we are waiting on sylvia 
  to change proposal

  dick: multicolored text, or styled text has this disucssion taken 
  place or have the issues been resolved

  eric: don't think we have had discussions about whether styling is a 

  GeoffF: need to discuss these to resiolve format issue, i think to 
  move things forward good idea to move format discussion out of current 

  mike: need to list iut the potential set of format requirements, but 
  it is pretty clear the proposal is not ready, take some more time, 
  sylvia needs to make chnages and back out to list for more discussion

  dick: can this be discussed at f2f

  mike: yes we can, nee to discuss f2f agenda

  <paulc> the TF should have a concrete plan to decide what to do at the 
  F2F and what NOT to do at the F2F and will be done separately.

  dick: don't know who is going to be there

f2f planning for April 6-7 meeting

  mike: f2f agenda planning: topics? 
  ... jeff will not be ther inperson, but via phone, eric will be there, 
  philip from opera may not be there 
  ... should be high on agenda, but may not get much done if right 
  people are not attending 
  ... MC , JS agendas?

  <MikeSmith> paulc, can you speak briefly on the call today to give 
  some suggestions about how best to plan for the f2f?

  janina: list of topcs, may be useful to look at the list, also poepl 
  to adopt items from list

  <MichaelC> Topic List

  cyns: is API mapping on there/

  paulC; how is it that mapping is an issue?

  cyns: indivdiual bugs for individual issues

  <paulc> See http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/138

  <oedipus> SF: been response to some of statement of issues; some 
  sorted, some unsorted; action for production of matrix still in 
  progress; will work on it second day of PF face2face at CSUN

  <oedipus> CS: easier to do in person

  <paulc> If this action is generating bugs rather than related to 
  existing bugs that is a good explanation.

  can somebody scribe now, i have to go


  <oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

  <paulc> Paul suggests that the facilitators clearly define what issues 
  will be on the F2F agenda and what actions the TF plans to take at the 

  MS: trying to figure out if specific action anyone can take on f2f 
  planning; Janina and i need to get proposed agenda out A.S.A.P.; prior 
  to that, more specific info about what needed to do to get agenda 

  CS: phone bridge?

  MC: made sure is a possibility for them

  CS: can't travel to england that week

  JS: there is a U.K. phone number to access Zakim

  MS: Cooper, anything else to do in last 7 minutes to get closer to 
  prep for f2f

  CS: something that might help is to ask those who can't attend or call 
  in to submit position paper or similar if want to make point; find a 
  champion who is attending

  JS: list that MSmit read off -- first half have tackled and are at 
  some stage of resulution 
  ... bottom half of list haven't started on at all -- some of those 
  might move forward if can get volunteers to come up with proposals

  MS: sounds possible; worry about adding more stuff to f2f discussion 
  plans because don't want it to be overwhelming;

  <paulc> I have to leave to get ready to scribe the HTML WG meeting. 

  MS: adding more topics may risk productivity

  JS: long, prolonged controversial items, yes, but some low-hanging 
  fruit like headers/id, and summary

  MS: have starting point for list of f2f topics 
  ... paul advised to distill down to specific topics 
  ... about to loose a lot of partipants due to commencement of HTML WG 
  ... Janina, chair next week?

  JS: yes; may be a lot of people missing in 2 weeks due to CSUN

  MS: will be in cambridge, mass on 25 march 2010

  JS: try to hold meeting or skip?

  MS: decide next week 
  ... make agenda item for next week -- meeting on 25 march 2010

  JS: reminder - U.S. goes to Daylight Savings Time on Sunday, 14 march 
  2010 - meetings an hour earlier (w3c time pegged to E.S.T.)

  CS: unable to participate much before CSUN



Summary of Action Items: NONE ASSIGNED

  [End of minutes] 

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:15:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:33 UTC